Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject is a non-notable minor. The article exists solely as a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete - yes this article may get interest in terms of a similar number of page views to random politicians and the like, but there is nothing of note here that that traffic could not find off Wikipedia in the Almanach de Gotha or various websites. - dwc lr (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only sources I can find are Hungarian news reports relating to his parents, where the children are mentioned in passing, and results of some central European youth equestrian sports events, where he has placed but not won. He should be mentioned in the parents' articles, but doesn't meet notability criteria for an individual article. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Being third-in-line to the former A-H throne is notable. My recommendation is to keep, but at the very least, this should be redirected or merged, not deleted. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If being third in the line to the throne of a country that has not existed for over a century were notable, there would be plenty of reliable sources discussing Karl-Konstantin and what he's up to. But there are not any. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, a former discussion of proposed deletion found the article notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an even worse argument than the one you made eight years ago. The argument in the former discussion was that he's just notable. The analysis of sources done by DrKay, however, shows that he is not. It would be much more helpful if you could demonstrate his notability according to the basic criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "that's an even worse argument than the one you made eight years ago", it is no more than your personal opinion (which I do not care), there was a valid decision 8 years earlier. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I take it that you will not attempt to demonstrate the child's notability according to this project's policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per DrKay -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete being any in line to a throne of a non-existant entitty that has no power is not a sign of notability. I have consistently said we need good sourcing to justify having an article on a minor. We totally lack it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record I once spent a whole summer creating a database of the royal families of Europe. I have studied the Habsburg's particularly heavily. I hold the view that unless we have something unrelated to their connection to a lost royal title to show notability, we should only have mentions of members of the house born since 1918 in the general article on the family. Of course I also think that in most cases we should not have articles on members of royal houses who died as minors who never ruled, but unfortunately we have some articles that are based on the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per DrKay and Surtsicna.Smeat75 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (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.