Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg line of succession


 * 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. After ignoring the opinion by Breadbasket because of their disruptive conduct ("Germans never learn; there will be a WW3"), there is consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  10:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg line of succession

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, unsourced, original research. DrKiernan (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Material appears at the Members of the House of Oldenburg article. Seven Letters 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge as deletion will erase the article's history and some important details. A separate article is not needed, as the main article is not very long. Ducal familaies are not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: The House of Glücksburg is not an ordinary, defunct German princely house. They are former, present, and future power-holders in several European kingdoms, including Norway, whose King is a close heir to the position as family head. I find it a bit ignorant to call this line of succession 'non-notable', I have to admit. I wish more information and sources, though. I have found an interesting publication in this regard: Die Legitime Erbfolge in Schleswig-Holstein (The Legitimate Line of Succession in Schleswig-Holstein). However, I have to check who was the author. Both the title and the year 1864 (Second Schleswig War) make me suspect that this might be pro-Prussian propaganda. — Breadbasket 20:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was notable, there would be sources for it. DrKiernan (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One is free to claim that. — Breadbasket 21:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Notability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". DrKiernan (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: In the case of German princely houses, it is broadly known that lines of succession are based on agnatic primogeniture. Demanding a source for this fact is just as unnecessary as demanding a source for that there are fjords in Norway; it is sufficient to desire a source. Otherwise, I see nothing incorrect, inaccurate or inappropriate with the content of this article. The template should remain there, though. — Breadbasket 14:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Broadly known" by whom? Are you claiming that any John Smith you ran into in the street would know that lines of succession to German princely houses are based on agnatic primogeniture? I doubt he would know what "agnatic" means. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * John Smith does not belong to the German-Nordic cultural sphere. Among Germans and Nordics, however, the principle of 'oldest son' is broadly known, not least because it occurs even in farmer-related legislation during the past 1,000 years, for example the Odelsrett and the Åsetesrett in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. The Norwegian odel system follows exactly the same principles as the system for succession of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg headship: older before younger, close before distant. — Breadbasket 16:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not written for people who belong to the German-Nordic cultural sphere. It is written for John Smiths, Jane Does and the general population. Besides, using a 1000-year-old farmer-related legislation to create an imaginary line of succession is pure synthesis. If the matter is as obvious as you claim it to be, then the article is not necessary; it is a matter of genealogical research in which, apparently, no scholar has been interested in. That makes it unnotable and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Study objects are to be treated and presented within their cultural frames. German princely houses, for instance, are not treated within British cultural frames. Thus, one cannot determine the notability of German princely houses, in casu their succession system, on whether John Smith is familiar with German culture and tradition. — Breadbasket 17:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Study objects are to be presented along with sources. You cannot claim that sources are not needed because something is "broadly known", especially not when it is not broadly known by the general human population. The lack of such sources is what proves that the article subject is unnotable. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely non-notable and therefore unsourceable original research. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: One can neither demand nor expect every of several hundred German houses to have third-party-published and constantly updated and correct literature regarding their respective lines of succession. The agnatic primogeniture is a common tradition for nearly all German princely houses. — Breadbasket 16:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One can, however, demand a proof of notability. Coverage proves notability, and the subject of this article is not covered by sources. Therefore, it is not notable. I could create a line of succession to the Angevin throne of Hungary, but what good would that be if no scholar has ever done that? Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, line of succession to a fantasy throne, no significance demonstrated. —Kusma (t·c) 15:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not a throne; it is a nominal position. Why do you allow yourself to vote over something you are not able to identify adequately? — Breadbasket 16:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even worse. Those people are said to be in line to something as abstract as a "nominal position", which explains the lack of notability. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am staying neutral but the bigger I see is the fact that the majority of the article is devoted to the line of succession of the head of the house while the bottom section talks about the title of Dukes of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg (why is this even relevant, the two other titles are not connected to this) for no apparent reason. By mentioning the King of Denmark's claim to Schleswig and Holstein, you neglect the fact the head of the House of Glücksburg himself claims to be the Duke/Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, inheriting the claim forwarded by the Augustenborg's against the Glücksburg Kings of Denmark.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The present head of the House of Glücksburg is a Glücksburg and not an Augustenburg. None of them possesses or may rightfully claim to possess the duchies Schleswig and Holstein, that are Danish and attached to Denmark, respectively. A female, Denmark's present monarch does not bear these two titles, that are restricted to males, but I do not know whether they have been officially relinquished. It could happen that the next King of Denmark will reassume them. — Breadbasket 21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Historically there were two claims to the duchies Schleswig and Holstein after 1863, one forwarded by the kings of Denmark and another initally by the Augustenburg. The former was inherited by the junior descendants of the Glucksburg aka Christian IX's descendants while the latter claim was inherited by the senior Glücksburg, the descendants of Christian IX's older brother, after the extinction of the Augustenburg. It makes no sense to even mention the Danish claim here and not the senior Glücksburg's claim. Mentioning the three ducal titles at all makes no sense on this article anyways since the title says this is suppose to be talking about the line of succession to the head of the house of Glucksburg. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An apropos in the article's introduction may be appropriate, especially when considering the current head's ambitions. Germans never learn; there will be a WW3. — Breadbasket 11:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments like this, that ascribe a moral failing to an entire cultural group, could easily be interpreted as racism and are not welcome here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Delete, comments from User:Breadbasket above that it is unreasonable to expect that this would be contained in a reliable, notable, and accurate source lead me to believe that this article is original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Even if not, this is excessive detail for the topic, although a brief discussion would be appropriate in House of Glücksburg.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:39, 26 December 2013 (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.