Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones


 * 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. Tone 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These thrones (of the Kingdom of Saxony and the Duchies of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Saxe-Meiningen, and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) have been defunct since 1918. 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 lines of succession to these thrones to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there are no current lines of succession, because the Kingdom and Duchies themselves don't even exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including three minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The Kingdom of Saxony was a small kingdom which ceased to be a sovereign state in 1871 and ceased to exist altogether in 1918. As this article recognises, there are various disputes about who the supposed king now is, based on issues like equal marriage.  This is both trivial and a quagmire, without even getting into issues like lines of succession to the various claimants, which I don't believe we can decide without getting into original research.  Anything legitimate should be incorporated in articles on notable pretenders, if there are any. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no reason to catalog succession to thrones that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete , ludicrous fantasy, OR.Smeat75 (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly insignificant but that could also be true of some notable topics e.g. Kardashian family. More importantly, although there are many sources, they are put together in a way that looks like a violation of WP:SYNTH. And I agree with the nominator re the dubious reliability of sources that treat this sort of fantasy as if it were real, and the lack of sources that take a more realistic view. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Devoke water  (talk)  19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - alternative history. Lines of succession only exist under legal frameworks that exist, not ones that haven't existed for a century. Agricolae (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on the quality of sources. There were several BLP violations, which I have just removed. This was the reflist for the before my revision, with items I deleted in bold and items that are possibly unreliable underlined:
 * 1) 4 citations to Heraldica.org, an SPS (by a non-expert) that doesn't seem to have been updated since the early 2000s.
 * 2) 5 citations to Arturo Beéche, European Royal History Journal. This is a blogspot blog by two amateur royalty enthusiasts (one is a self-described "armchair historian").
 * 3) 2 citations to GHdA (1991). Royal genealogy book published by a German nobility association about the families of its membership.
 * 4) 4 citations to Le Petit Gotha. Royal genealogy book published by ... Le Petit Gotha? I cannot find information on any independent publishing house, and the authors were royalist activists with no scholarly contributions. Although this book has enjoyed RS privileges and is highly cited on WP, after having looked into it I am now unconvinced of its reliability given the lack of publishing oversight.
 * 5) A Bild article. This newspaper is considered "generally unreliable".
 * 6) Les Maisons Impériales et Royales d'Europe published by "Éditions du Palais-Royal", which I can't find info on. The author is Guy Coutant de Saisseval, one of the (non-expert) authors of Le Petit Gotha.
 * 7) Another Bild article.
 * 8) GHdA (2007) (p. 11).
 * 9) The Descendants of Louis XIII (1999), published by Clearfield (now merged with Genealogical Publishing Co.).
 * 10) Christian Cannuyer's Les maisons royales et souveraines d'Europe. This is RS, but it's unclear what statements it is supporting in the body (specific discussion of Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe's Maronite claim of descent vs. general background info on the historical Afif dynasty).
 * 11) 2 citations to L'Allemagne Dynastique Tome VI. The reflist says its publisher is "Laballery", which is just a print-on-demand printing house, not a publisher. French wiki seems to think it was published through one of its authors (Alain Girard).
 * 12) David McIntosh, European Royal History Journal. See above.
 * 13) Article in Sächsische Zeitung.
 * 14) Article in Der Spiegel.
 * 15) Personal website of "Prinz Albert von Sachsen" (used with attribution).
 * 16) Duplicate citation to the first "ERHJ" article by Beéche.
 * 17) A different article by Beéche in "ERHJ.
 * 18) Interview with Albert Prinz von Sachsen published on a (blog) website maintained by Bertuch Verlag (a publishing house) where "cultural scientists and hobby historians regularly publish interesting articles about special places, people and events from Saxony's past and present." Articles are not peer-reviewed; the website's administrators only claim to proofread submissions. This is likely not RS but more feedback may be needed.
 * 19) A third article in Bild.
 * 20) Article in Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk.
 * 21) Article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
 * 22) PDF of a 2015 agreement within the Wettin family, hosted by the website of the Association of German Nobility Associations.
 * 23) 18 citations to the resurrected version of the Almanach de Gotha (2013). Issues with accuracy have been noted.
 * 24) Another page on Albert Prinz von Sachsen's personal website.
 * 25) The House of Wettin website.
 * 26) Duplicate FAZ citation.
 * 27) Article in Morgenpost.
 * 28) "Reading Notes" published on Heraldica.org.
 * 29) GHdA (2007) (pp. 89–99).


 * As the bulk of the succession lines are based either on unreliable or wholly-primary sources, or on unsourced synthesis, I think the article should be deleted with any info on independently-covered dynastic disputes merged into the articles on relevant family members or the family as a whole. The various hypothetical lines of succession are not described in full and in relation to each other in any of the sources the way they are portrayed here, indicating extensive synthesis that should not be retained. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Le Petit Gotha, see also the comments by me and over at Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Bulgarian throne. Perhaps it is time to start a discussion at WP:RSN? TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete this awesomely absurd alternate history original research. —Kusma (t·c) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This article is combining titular claims to the Kingdom (once Electorate) of Saxony with those of several duchies, which were fragmented due to partible inheritance. For UK, we have an article on every peerage.  I see no reason why we should not have articles on the successors to what are equally empty titles.  I suspect that the holders are still using the title "duke".  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several significant differences. UK peerage titles are still officially recognised.  They do still have some limited power as they collectively elect a number of representatives in the House of Lords.  The whole point of this article is to put forward various lines of succession, which is subject to doubt, dispute and original research.  We do not have articles putting forward the line of succession to every UK peerage title. PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, long defunct throne, theoretical succession.--Hippeus (talk) 12:45, 30 August 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.