The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The core policies of Wikipedia are that our content (especially as it relates to living persons) must be verifiable through reliable sources and must not consist of original research. The "delete" side makes a strong case that this article fails these policies because the article cites no sources to verify this hypothetical line of succession to an abolished throne. The "keep" opinions generally do not even attempt to address this core policy problem and must therefore be discounted. Sandstein 08:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne[edit]
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]
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]
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. SportingFlyerT·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. SportingFlyerT·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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:10, 15 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]
FYI, this user has been blocked indefinitely for their behavior on this and other pages. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion of people born post-1918 makes this little better than a hoax -- there is no way to make an article on this subject compatible with OR/SYNTH. I would support providing a copy to DrKay in user or draft space in case they want to use it for an article called succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne (or whatever) that doesn't pretend "the Austro-Hungarian throne" is a thing that has an extant line of succession. --JBL (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A line of succession does not exist without the state's validation of it, and since there is no such state any longer, the only thing that can be verified is a line of succession that stops in 1918. I would accept something on that (and in may already exist in the main article on the empire), but anything after 1918 is in pretense, and who is to say which pretender would be chosen were a new empire formed? And yes, similar articles about other disestablished monarchies ought to go as well, and for a reality check on monarchic succession, take a look at the Greek monarchy, which is just about as weird as it gets. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI there is a related discussion at NPOV regarding how wikipedia should handle people who inherit abolished titles. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this Wikipedia article is going to be abolished, the same should also be done for all of the other Wikipedia articles that discuss the lines of succession to various former monarchies. Also, while Austria-Hungary doesn't actually exist anymore, both Austria and Hungary still exist right now and thus theoretically speaking the Hapsburg monarchy can be restored in either of these two countries even right now--even if the likelihood of this is extremely low at this specific point in time. Also, as a side note, I suppose that this article could have value in the sense that it lists all of the current male-line Hapsburgs with the exception of Franz Ferdinand's descents, who were disinherited due to Franz Ferdinand's morganatic marriage. Futurist110 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support getting rid of other articles that synthesize unsourced lines of succession to abolished thrones. The information on the current male lines are mostly already in the House of Hapsburg article, with the exception of all the non-notable people. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea. Just make sure to push for deleting all of those other articles if/after this specific article is deleted. Futurist110 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically speaking, since the nations of Earth exist, they could appoint me Emperor of Mankind tomorrow, but that doesn't mean there should be an article about me and my family. That will have to wait until they see sense, or until it gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, though, you're not ex-royalty. ;) Futurist110 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was Bernadotte. Agricolae (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's an exception to the rule. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the point - as long as exceptions are possible, (or changes in succession rules like several existing monarchies abandoning male-preference primogeniture for non-gender-discriminating primogeniture), it is significantly problematic to assume either the rules of 1918 or the current rules of the former ruling family need apply to a hypothetical re-established monarchy, as this page and several others do. Agricolae (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the succession rules, there could be two camps in regards to this. One camp could say that we should stick to the old succession rules and only change them after a restoration of the monarchy while another camp could say that the head of a royal house could unilaterally change succession rules even without any restoration of a monarchy. The first approach is more stable and predictable, IMHO--and it of course still allows changes in the succession rules in order to make them more egalitarian once it actually begins to matter again, specifically if/after a monarchy is (ever) restored. Futurist110 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the third (correct) camp: it doesn't matter what the rules possibly hypothetically could be, because the rules actually are that none of these people is monarch (or whatever) of anything. It is not possible to reliably source the succession rules for an entirely notional throne, and Wikipedia editors should not pretend otherwise. --JBL (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first approach is more stable and predictable, IMHO - Wikipedia has no business predicting, though - it is inherently WP:CRYSTAL to select any set of rules for a hypothetical future re-established monarchy, and it is inherently counterfactual to pretend that these are heirs to a currently non-existent title. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about we simply list the lines of succession for all of the different current claimants to the Austro-Hungarian thrones, then? As far as I know, though, Karl von Habsburg is literally the only current claimant to the Austro-Hungarian thrones. If there were also additional claimants to this throne (such as yourself and/or whomever, and if your and/or whomever's claims to these thrones actually got some media attention), then I would completely agree with you that this article should include these additional claimants as well as the lines of succession for their own claims to these thrones (if they would have actually put forward some mechanism to determine the line of succession for their own claims to these thrones, that is). Maybe this article should also include a note stating that a restored Austro-Hungarian monarchy could choose to stick with the line of succession that was historically used (and is still currently used by the House of Hapsburg to determine claimants to the defunct Austro-Hungarian thrones) or create a new line of succession through new succession rules/laws. Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple problems with this - first, as I understand it, he doesn't actually claim the Austro-Hungarian thrones. Second, if there is only one so-called claimant, there is no point to having a whole page dedicated to just this claim. Third, the statement that 'the Austro-Hungarian monarchy' can do whatever they please may seem obvious, but it is a direct claim that needs WP:V support, else it is just editorializing. Fourth, the whole thing is predicated on a dubious foundation, the idea that there will ever be an Austro-Hungarian nation-state, let alone one with a monarchy, ever again. That this post-Imperial, post-Soviet world will ever see a reunion of these nations based on some sentiment of historical nostalgia seems quite misplaced to me. Agricolae (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing for this as a notable topic is incredibly thin. By the time of the marriage of Archduke Karl in 1993 to Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza, who did not meet the old equality requirements, the rules regarding equal marriages had been relaxed. I should think so. At this point this is a very long article describing in detail a family's obscure and meaningless rules over who can be heir to a century-dead title over a country that no longer exists. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune and rename perhaps to Potential claimants to the Austro-Hungarian thrones. I choose that in preference to "Pretenders". This is speculative exercise, but I suspect we have articles on other similar ex-monarchies in Europe. The issue is a little more complex and speculative in this case, because of the issue as to which marriages are morganatic. We could probably usefully lose details of cousins who would come a long way down the order of succession if there was one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is speculative exercise. Yes, that is the whole point. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unverifiable per the nominator's reasoning. The article is maybe 20% historical fact and 80% fiction, no line between the two, kind of a flaw in an encyclopedia. The theoretical succession stacks multiple implicit unexplained what-if assumptions on top of each other. First let's say the Austro-Hungarian empire is reborn and looking to fill its top job. Of all former monarchies in the world to pipedream about, this one was especially unstable, in chronic constitutional crisis, struggling to hold big stretches of Balkan territory under an impossibly complex dual monarchy. (By the way how does this article deal with the dual monarchy thing? Aren't there two lines of succession? "Unclear" at best.) As discussed above all noble titles were abolished within Austria in 1919, and Hungarian nobility was abolished in 1947 with a proposed reinstatement opposed by Hungarian courts as anti-democratic as recently as 2009. I mean, what if Kaiser Wilhelm were reincarnated as Amy Winehouse Jr.? What then? --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What the current (theoretical) succession shows is the current line of succession to the headship of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, (or the Imperial House of Austria as it’s also known). - dwc lr (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm struggling to see why the line of succession to a notable throne, whether that throne is still legally extant or not, is not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale offered has nothing to do with notability. --JBL (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy itself was abolished more than a century ago. This article is as ridiculous an exercise in speculation as trying to determine the current chain of command of the East German National People's Army. TompaDompa (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a list that could be sourced using reliable sources. As DrKay points out this was an important topic -- so vital that wars were fought over the subject. This is of no interest to people who live in Republics and don't care to bother to read world history, but to many Europeans it remains something they would search for on Wikipedia. Once notable, a subject is always notable. Without a valid reason to delete, the status quo is the fallback option. AfD is not for fixing problems with sources or editing issues, which seem to be the bugaboo. If you must absolutely delete by necessary, or your head will explode, please make it a soft delete, and userfy it to my user-space so that I can work on it later. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would you source it? What WP:RELIABLE sources exist for the current line of succession to the no-longer-existent Austro-Hungarian throne? TompaDompa (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so vital that wars were fought over the subject. Wars have never been fought over whether Bartholomäus of Austria-Este is 9th in line to . . . .whatever it is he is 9th in line to, because it certainly isn't any real existing throne. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is of no interest to people who live in Republics Like, say, everyone in Austria? The casual imputation of incompetence (if not actual maliciousness) onto editors who disagree with you was not charming coming from a SPA troll, and it is not more charming when coming from a long-time user. --JBL (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing one might learn from the actual War of the Austrian Succession is that these lines are essentially fictive the moment they are challenged, and I would think them especially so when there is no political or military force behind them. After all, how does one fight a war over what is not disputed? Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.