Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este


 * 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. and salted JForget  00:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Set of articles on a New York based branch of the Hapsburgs. Articles provide links to sources, which, however, on examination, do not mention the subjects. No sources whatsoever found to verify assertions made in the articles. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages as related articles created by same author which fail verification:


 * Note: To avoid confusion for anyone checking, there is an Archduke Christoph, son of Archduke Carl Christian of Austria born 1988, who is indeed in line for succession, but his biographical details are completely different, beyond there being room for any possible confusion on the part of the article creator. It also has to be noted that his entry on the Line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne was overwritten by an IP editor in the last day.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 21:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

— Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As a scholar of the Habsburg family, I can certify the biographical details of Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este are completely legitimate. Archduke Christoph of Austria, the son of Archduke Carl Christian of Austria, is not of the house of Austria-Este and, I agree, is a completely different individual. As you see in the article, the ancestry matches up. I cannot comment on the references as they lead to general monarchical databases yet I am willing to certify that the information provided in the articles is correct.


 * Well, I am not sure what you mean by saying that "As you see in the article, the ancestry matches up."; what reliable source are you saying that it matches up with? Nor am I quite sure why you can't comment on the references introduced, for example those using thepeerage.com, as you introduced many of them. For example, the first version of the Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este article, an article you created, contains two references, one using thepeerage.com and one using "Royal Genealogies Part 10"; neither of the two sources used mentions the subject in any form whatsoever. As for the possibilty that the URL might have changed in the meantime, a Google site search does not reveal any entries for any of the subjects. The references used in the articles prior to the AFD, all of which were web based, all failed verifiability when checked. As for the sources added after this Articles for Deletion discussion was initiated, they, alas, all are presented as sources without inline citations, which means it is hard to work out what they are actually sourcing. For example, the book "Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs: 1815-1835" is used to as a reference to source the Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. The book is available as a Limited Preview on Google Books, and a search does not reveal a mention of the subject; this might of course be a limitation in the Google book process, but I have to ask why a book on an interesting period in Italian history, when Venice was being shuffled around between France, Austria and Lombardy, would be a source for an article on a living person born in 1992. I have to say, and directly to avoid any misunderstanding, that I question all the sources added to the articles since this AFD was initiated. I also have to wonder why the articles assert that they contain extracts from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, as all the subjects were born many decades later. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note While I was typing the above, many of the references I referred to above were changed or removed by an IP editor, so might I suggest that anyone contributing to this AFD might want to look carefully at the histories of the artices nominated? FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

— Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note The references I added to the articles pertain to the ancestry of said individuals ie. their ancestors. Persons mentioned in such references are Archduke Ferdinand Karl, Elizabeth Franziska, Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, Margherita of Bourbon-Parma, ect. The book you mention above, on Venetia, mentions not only the house of Austria-Este, rulers in Italy during the period, but contains genealogical information about the individuals whose pages these are.

— Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. In case somebody doesn't know: Austria and Hungary have both been republics since 1918. Austria abolished all titles of nobility completely (i.e. they did not even survive in people's names) in 1919. I guess something similar happened in Hungary, in the communist era if not earlier. Thus since 1918 there has been no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian throne. Hans Adler 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I must insist that all claimants to the imperial throne are notable in the sense that they are members of one of the most important and famous imperial families in history. By questioning the validity of this article, wouldn't you question the validity of any Habsburg descendant who isn't important? If so, please look at the page of Archduke Joseph Arpad of Austria.


 * If you are worried that I might be inconsistent in my rejection of Gotha entry spam, I suggest that you have a look at the deletion discussion for Maria Huber. See WP:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Wikipedia has fairly well established notability standards based on more or less objective criteria that do not give extra credits for having a fancy name, living in the past, or dreams of restoration. Being part of a notable family makes you likely to appear in a genealogy article about that family. It doesn't make you notable, i.e. it doesn't entitle you to your own separate article. Being part of a notable family makes it easier to get into the papers by leading a huge enterprise or publicly making a fool of yourself. It doesn't make you notable if you choose not to pursue any such public activity.

I must argue that the notability standard in this case is subjective. 63.139.66.1 (talk)
 * There is nothing in these articles to suggest that these people are notable. Having grandparents, parents, spouses and children doesn't make you notable. Fifth place in the election for the Lord Mayor of London doesn't make you notable unless the press takes notice and writes something nontrivial about you. And this is even more true for abolished thrones. Hans Adler 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be a place on Wikipedia for some of the information you are trying to include, but not in a separate article for every single person. See e.g. de:Stammliste des Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen or de:Este (Familie). (I couldn't locate your family there, though.) But the general rule is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Britannica doesn't honour every single icecream flavour or Pokemon card with its own article, and neither do we. Hans Adler 14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD of the other article was disrupted and ended with no consensus. The objectively correct result would have been deletion or merge.
 * If you want to save your articles from deletion you will have to argue why the subjects meet our notability guidelines. See WP:Notability (people). Under which section do you claim that any of these is notable? Note that special notability guidelines for people with a title were once proposed, but failed to get consensus. Hans Adler 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These people are notable under general notability guidelines because they are mentioned in reliable sources (check the books) as notable. Archduke Fulvio Marco conducted a covert operation in the 1970s to contact the Tamil United Liberation Front in Sri Lanka on behalf of the Italian government. While you argue that people notability for people with a title have failed to get consensus, this hasn't ensured the deletion of the pages above mentioned.--Knyphausen56 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend you read the relevant guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Simple mention in a reliable source is insufficient.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We must be particularly strict about such things because in the past we have had cases of people inventing noble ancestors and creating hoax pages for them on Wikipedia. That was clearly not the case for Mrs. Huber (although she does not appear to be notable), but it can't be ruled out for the people under discussion. Hans Adler 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment All true of course, but claimants might, and I stress the word might, be notable under general notabilty as claimants if they are the subject of significant coverage. While I can't see that any of the subjects of articles here do that, as for example the only mention I can find are the Wikipedia articles and they don't seem to be generating any coverage, the articles do include (or should I say did include) explicitly mentioned sources that do (or did) not verify any of the assertions made. I brought the articles here on verifiability grounds but yes, even if the articles had passed WP:V, there would have been notability issues. Claimants to a long-defunct throne, unless they are the subject of coverage in their own right, would hardly be automatically notable.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I just found one instance of the IP from Princeton injecting additional offspring into an article which is not backed by the source. You have already reverted it. This doesn't look good at all. Hans Adler 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the substantial (as far as i can tell, there isn't even unsubstantial) coverage of this person in reliable sources that would establish them as sufficiently notably to qualify for inclusion under the GNG and BIO guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt the other two blp afds are linked to this one? Just read them as well. Delete all three.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

*Investigate I think all the sources listed (if acceptable and verifiable) should be consulted before any judgment should be made.--Chrisco123 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) — Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete all. I have gone through the editing history of the article creator Knyphausen56 and the IP that Knyphausen is using when logged out. On closer inspection this is an obvious hoax in order to fake royal ancestry for a 17-year-old. The two parents are also hoaxes, and information in various legitimate articles was manipulated to fit the hoax: The name of a spouse was changed to a non-existent person who appears in Christoph Franz' genealogy, or the name or date of birth of a son or daughter was changed, or additional offspring was added, or the fact that a person died unmarried was removed. All these edits were without explanation. All sources presented originally failed verification. All sources that were presented later are books that are relatively hard to obtain, and no page numbers are given.
 * For details see the sockpuppet report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Knyphausen56. Hans Adler 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

*Keep until a full investigation of all sources is conducted. --Chrisco123 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC) — Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. "chrisco123" is a CU confirmed sock of the article author, who also owns the IPs that have been causing the disruption here and appears to be a rather immature student at the Lawrenceville School. Move to shut this all down as speedy delete, and to salt all the fictional names that are redlinked to slow this child down.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Recommend Salt as well.  Edward321 (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now urge salting of all three given the ongoing hoaxing by this little kid. It's pathetic that this stuff is allowed to drag on like this (it's also pathetic that a lot of his vandalism i've reverted is to roll back to similarly unsourced, albiet more plausible, material but that's another matter.).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While issues raised here and elsewhere need to be resolved, and I appreciate that a lot of the delay might be a human resources availability problem, I would recommend that consideration be given to salting some of the redlinks, particularly in the Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este article, as they don't seem to have any basis in reality. I have to agree with Bali about the problem of reverting edits on a completely unsourced article; that was one of the reasons I had to raise the issue elsewhere. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

*Strong Keep this is a malicious anti-monarchist attack.--68.36.205.151 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — 68.36.205.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
 * Strong delete all, clearly hoaxes and SALT. ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the attack on this page is unjustifiable and is perpetrated in a manner which suggests collusion between the parties involved.--Knyphausen56 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this page has been attacked while none of the sources listed have been checked. This page should be kept as, after inspection of the sources, the veracity of these pages will be confirmed. --Chrisco123 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - these articles are hoaxes, and they should go away promptly. It worries me, though, that I was able to find Princeton-area IPs editing related articles all the way back to 2007 (see and ). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources seem to check out.--Rr456 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Rr456 has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is a sock of the article creator.
 * Keep the sources appear to be genuine.--74.95.177.244 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Note - this IP is registered to The Lawrenceville School, like the other IP socks that have been disrupting this AfD. JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - if this nuisance continues and more Lawrenceville School socks appear, consider range-blocking the school and/or communicating with the school authorities. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three hoaxes. - dwc lr (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all three. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all and agree it's time to contact the school administration about this. There's a list of phone numbers at  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.