Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne: Difference between revisions

Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A. The "present line of succession" is hypothetical--inferred based on who would have been emperor if all nobility/royalty hadn't been abolished and outlawed in 1919. There is no actual, legal line of succession, nor is there a reliably-sourced movement to restore the empire that confirms this ordering. The page is actually just an unverified line of succession to various heads of families.

B. The intent of this article is to maintain an active line of succession based upon Almanach de Gotha and other nobility periodicals. However, as these sources are not updated regularly, other sources such as birth announcements on twitter are used to update the article, with the editor's own interpretation of succession laws determining where in the line a person now stands. Even if the title still existed, this would be OR. Additionally, cobbling together disparate references to create a more expansive diagram of relationships than that seen in individual sources is synthesis.

C. Most of the people in this line do not have WP articles, and no sources are provided verifying their inclusion. This is firstly a BLPNAME violation (particularly for the minors); secondly a violation of general BLP sourcing requirements -- possibly meeting the criteria for immediate removal: claiming noble titles is *illegal* in Austria, so inclusion on here could therefore be a contentious allegation; and thirdly an issue of DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC) JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nominator.Smeat75 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A listing of 98 heirs to a non-existent title would be ridiculously out of proportion even were it not for the sourcing, OR, synth, BLP and other issues. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems a misguided AFD, surely if there are concerns about one part of the article (i.e. the current line of succession) then take it to the talk page rather than delete the whole article? Why base the whole AFD on one area (i.e. the current list), even without that its still a useful topic of relevant historic significance. It discusses issues like morganatic marriages such as the famous one of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. If the living people can't be sourced properly they should be removed but the article should be kept. But this is wrong place to be having the discussion. - dwc lr (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misguided about this at all. Even the small amount of text (14 lines vs almost 200 lines dedicated to detailing the orders of succession) is discussing so-called rules for a non-existent game. Morganatic marriages do not disqualify someone from succeeding to the Austro-Hungarian throne because there is no Austro-Hungarian throne to be disqualified from the succession to, and we can neither ourselves determine what the current rules should be nor present a speculative alternative historical scenario whereby the Austro-Hungarian throne of 1918 persists in perpetuity with the rules from that time. It is the entire page that is misguided, not the proposal to get rid of it. Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to delete an article based on one section of it, neither yourself or the proposer mentioned any other reasons. This is an article that you need to look at from a historic context, not just the current context, and then you also need to look at it overall. There are plenty of reliable sources for the text in the history section all relevant to the topic of the article so it’s clearly a notable topic with or without the current in line of succession. Successions to abolished thrones are topics that have considerable coverage, particularly those like France or Russia where there has been a dispute over who is the rightful heir or head of the former reigning house. Those 14 lines of text can be expanded over time by different editors, they can’t be if it gets deleted because of one section of the article. - dwc lr (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it overall, this is an article about delineating who are the heirs to a throne that doesn't exist, based on rules that don't exist anymore, and assuming that the recent marital foibles of the family that used to rule somehow are binding on their extinct polity. Agricolae (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the Belgian monarchy ended tomorrow would we delete the Belgian Line of succession article? I don’t think we would, it’s still a notable topic from a historic perspective at the very least discussing the evolution over time, the same is true here. -dwc lr (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a relevant list, such as Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne, Line of succession to the former Russian throne or Line of succession to the former French throne (Orléanist). I see a double standard here regarding Austria-Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Agricolae (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTCARE. :) Your above arguments are false and deceptive. Yugoslavia, Kingdom of the Two Sicilies or Saxony were also non-existent countries anymore. This article is well sourced, and also included the last legal situation in November 1918. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia and the Two Sicilies and Saxony also have nothing to do with this AfD. There is nothing or deceptive about the OR, SYNTH, BLP, etc., etc., violations, but you don't care. Not much left to say, then, is there. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norden1990 is right. The same principle applies, the concept of succession to an abolished throne still applies and doesn’t become invalid or not notable overnight if a current monarchy was abolished today. - dwc lr (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's weird about the article is that it assumes the monarchy never stopped, which is absolutely ridiculous. I think an article that cuts off right at the end of the monarchy could be kept, but I don't know if that article exists, and in no way, shape, or form should anyone afterwards be included, as it's basically make believe. Whether that means I'm a keep on notability grounds or a delete on WP:TNT grounds, I'm not sure. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The first line of the article makes clear the monarchy was abolished and article title says former throne etc. The position of heir to the throne/pretender/head of the house of Habsburg or whatever you want to call it exists and is notable still and it’s not just a random person plucked out of thin air who occupies it the succession carries on and sources would back that up. The French monarchy was abolished long ago but the succession to the throne and who is the rightful heir is a point of contention make believe or not.[1]. If the Belgian monarchy ended tomorrow I don’t see why the line of succession to the Belgian throne article would be deleted it would still contain encyclopaedic content, same as in this article. - dwc lr (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You just made a distinction between "head of a family" and "heir to the throne." There is no throne. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 8 July 2020 la)!9(UTC)

• You are not addressing the BLP violations, OR and lack of verification raised by the nominator. Also lack of notability. "Who would be 10th in line" to a non existent throne is perhaps an amusing diversion for some but does not belong here. I agree that if the article stopped at the date the monarchy was abolished it would be OK, to continue after that is ludicrous fantasy. Smeat75 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive said if there are problems with the current list let’s go to the article talk page. What’s happening here is saying let’s delete an article based on one section. There seems to be consensus the article should remain with the current list up for discussion. - dwc lr (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's time we stopped pandering to the people who pretend that the Habsburg Law never happened. Guy (help!) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So your saying delete based on your personal POV rather than anything else. -dwc lr (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and review succession list for non-notable people. I have read the articles for the people in this list who have them. None of them use the titles. There is no active monarchist movement. This is a family tree of a few rich people.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No offence but your last sentence makes you sound incredibly snobbish. - dwc lr (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The other pages for abolished monarchies under Template:Orders of succession by country might need looking at as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:EDB8:CE59:93E7:C06A (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's the only article we've got on succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne, which is a vastly important topic over which wars were fought and thousands of people were killed. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it could be limited to the line of succession as of 1918? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:5033:5966:80D3:C378 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Agree with Dr Kay. It's a very useful article, particularly as it updates the Gotha. Such articles are constantly targeted by those holding left-wing chips on shoulders, or obscure royalty-thingy grudges, and they need to be resisted, and recognised as the kind of cancel culture, corrosive to historical information, that they are. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]