Points of interest related to Germany on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Germany related AfDs

Germany[edit]

Akuma Saningong

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional and written by a UPE. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Cameroon, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started to remove the sources that are really blogs or blurb/PR for his promotional speaking events, but I would be left with little else if I continue. Highly promotional article for which a Wikipedia article is the main component of his notabilitt?! Aszx5000 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why not !vote? - UtherSRG (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSCIENTIST, other claims are spurious, nothing on Google that isn't press-related. BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — obviously promotional, not much more to be added. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RooR

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage on the internet, nearly unsourced advertisement. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Haupt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Technically meets the requirements at WP:NTENNIS through his wildcard in a local tournament but has no accomplishments as a tennis player that indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fritz Behrendt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Possible that WP:NPROF is met but I'm not finding the sources to show it JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Social science, and Germany. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His book Sozial Strategie für Entwicklungsländer has high citations in Google Scholar, but that's the only one. The authority control box links to an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, which may meet WP:ANYBIO #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Have added some refs (Two reviews of one of his books) and two things by Katja Windisch (Windisch, Katja (2005) Shaping Social Change. The development sociology of Richard F. Behrendt, Bern , pp. 19-31. (Gestalten sozialen Wandels. Die Entwicklungssoziologie Richard F. Behrendts, Social Strategies, Vol. 39, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 2005, 259 S.) AND Windisch, Katja (2002) Betrachtungen zur Sozialen Entwicklungsstrategie und Sozioökonomie Richard F. Behrendts. Soziale Phänomene als Vorbedingungen ökonomischer Entwicklung, in: Victoria Jäggi, Ueli Mäder, Katja Windisch (Hrsg.): Entwicklung, Recht, sozialer Wandel. Festschrift für Paul Trappe zum 70. Geburtstag, Social Strategies, Vol. 35, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, S. 74-84.).(https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Gestalten_sozialen_Wandels/xX8mWf7_3rUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Richard+Behrendt%22+-wikipedia+Windisch&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover) These seem to me sufficient to allow a clear pass of WP:prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. We now have five reviews of two books, enough for at least a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR from me. I think the other material brings this up to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the information in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland entry led me to more detail about his career and many more book reviews. Now the AUTHOR pass is obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bernstein

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional/UPE. Engineer did engineering things. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Germany, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly ordinary career. Also, the article was created by a banned sockpuppet, a paid editor. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 100% agree MaskedSinger (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In what universe is being elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) an "utterly ordinary career"? The notability of researchers in industry as well as academia are covered by WP:NPROF which assesses notability by their impact on their field. He meets criteria #3: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics). StarryGrandma (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3, one of the main examples used in WP:PROF of the sort of thing that passes that criterion. G5 speedy is not in play because the article was created before anyone was indeffed (which is, by the way, not the same thing as banned). And in what universe would, say, "professional athlete did professional athlete things" be regarded as a valid deletion rationale, or "100% agree" be regarded as a substantial contribution to a deletion discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:Prof#C3 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Clear C3 pass as an IEEE fellow. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not only IEEE, but NASA medal, etc. would be enough even if he weren't an IEEE Fellow. Basically a speedy or snow keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erento

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone previously attempted Wikipedia:PROD, but I thought we should do AFD instead User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sawerchessread, that someone was me, and you could have told me. I don't know why we are here, and you didn't give a deletion rationale. You also didn't give any actual reason for removing the PROD--this is just an extra layer of work. Delete: not a notable outfit. Likely COI/UPE creation with promotional contributions. In the past it's had some sourcing, but if you look carefully those are really press releases in things that aren't independent publications. My PROD rationale said "Pretty obvious COI creation. Lack of secondary sources, no credible claims of notability, really just product placement", and I stand by that. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apologies. did not know the protocol. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Hamel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references that I found in the corresponding German article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Vogel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession. In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections. This is just trivial nonsense. Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by all the media coverage already cited in the article, including an article in The Wall Street Journal. Contrary to the nominator's claim, the line of succession is distinctly finite. It consists only of descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story, but without much more, I don't see notability. Medical therapist interviewed a decade ago with nothing since, I don't see sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 4972nd in line, if that helps. Could be a one line mention in an article about the monarchy, but that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Succession to the British throne, a sentence on the lines of "In 2011 it was reported that some genealogists had stated that therapist Karin Vogel, from Rostoock, Germany, was then the 4,972nd and last in the line of succession." with the various sources. (The WSJ seems to be the core report, but is pay-walled so I can't see it). Seems an encyclopedia-worthy snippet of reporting, but not enough to give her an article of her own. PamD 21:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more carefully at Succession to the British throne I note that the list on which she appears is mentioned and referenced, as is the update 10 years later where she was again in last place, this time at 5,753. I have added her name and a couple of her refs to that article. I now think we can just Redirect to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. PamD 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the reporters were not "doing OR" as asserted by the nominator: they were reporting on a report by a notable genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner who had compiled what he asserted to be a complete list (and yes, it is a finite set of people because of the requirement that they be descendants of Sophia, although this list is over-inclusive as it doesn't check for "in communion with the Church of England"!). PamD 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. WP:ONEEVENT. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rott

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

another influencer with no substantial coverage from any reliable source FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The GQ is a few photos with captions describing what this individual is wearing. No coverage outside of this type of photo spread/ "look what the celebrity is wearing". I don't see notability in the given sources either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still eligible for WP:soft deletion as the edits that came after the PROD was nothing but padding with unreliable sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anybody can call themself an influencer, and many do. Want to get noticed? - label yourself "an influencer". If his group the Elevator Boys don't rate a Wikipedia article, the individuals therein certainly are not notable. The search brings up a lot of hits that mostly say "gained a lot of attention through their videos on the social media platform Tiktok". So? Being noticed is not the same thing as achieving awards and mainstream media coverage. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted 3 1/2 years ago, and while this may not strictly be recreation of deleted material, the reasons for deletion then still apply. By German law, he is not actually a prince, and there are thus no noble houses; and that seems to be his only claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - head of a defunct royal house is still notable. This was just on the "Did you know" part of the Main Page. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Technically, he's not the head of a defunct royal house, he's the son of the head of a defunct royal house.
2601:249:9301:D570:A899:3E2B:BB8C:AE49 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is this some kind of infinite loop whereby the page is recreated every few years and then sent to AfD where the same participants make essentially the same comments? JMWt (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic example of there being sources, but no significant coverage more than an inch deep. As already stated, he is not actually a noble, which might have justified such an article, but the German nobility have been abolished for over 100 years. Yes, CBS has a bunch of pictures of their wedding, but this is essentially the equivalent of those "human interest stories" newspapers sometimes run where they give a deep dive to someone but not really due to any direct importance. To quote AFD2: "The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)". Not notable. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that this article survived a deletion discussion years ago, failed another a few years after that, and now is up for deletion again. Definitely odd that it should get through the DYK process, only to be potentially deleted. My thoughts -- if he were the current head of the house, I'd be more keen on notability, but he's the heir, so whatever. The article as-is doesn't have great sourcing but I'd say there are sources to be found. The sources related to his marriage are fine sources. Might be a close-run thing, but given the choice to delete or keep, I say keep. The article doesn't need to be perfect right now, and I'm reasonably confident it will improve in the future. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails SUSTAINED, sources restricted to breathless human interest crud, zero presumption of notability for being the "head" of defunct noble family. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is some coverage and I have expanded this article from when it was deleted the first time. By the nominator's logic, a Prince from a defunct royal dynasty does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Okay, so does that mean the articles of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, and many more should be deleted also? Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is true that there is a nest of borderline-notability members of former noble families that could probably be deleted, although your examples aren't them. 2) Vittorio Emanuele is a bad example; he really was a noble when he was a kid, so he'd be judged under actual noble standards. 3) Most of your example articles involve people who have done notable things that would merit their inclusion regardless of their nobility - Franz von Bayern (who is not a Duke of Bavaria, for the record, there is no such position) would merit an article if he was simply a wealthy philanthropist with a backstory about his family having opposed the Nazis and been locked up by them. That's actually the more relevant hypothetical to think about: suppose that there was some parallel person to Hubertus who was not a noble, not a pretender, but was born into wealth and lived an identical life to Hubertus. Suppose we also had "high society" news that talked about all the wealthy friends that showed up to this scion's wedding. Is that enough for an article? Because that's the standard that needs to be met. We have this situation crop up all the time elsewhere for non-noble rich people, and we generally demand a little more than just "they exist" to get an article - they need to do something, anything. Sponsor a Formula 1 team, be a philanthropist, be a political donor or advocate, etc. Take a look at, say, Mellon family - you'll note that while there's plenty of bluelinks in the family tree, there's plenty of non-linked articles, too. Not everyone born into wealth gets a Wikipedia article, and that's okay. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - These cases are not all equivalent anyway. I note first that the last's article is under his actual name, and that Vittorio Emanuele is probably notable fo all his escapades if nothing else. The Greek fellow presents something of a different issue since he was once crown prince but hasn't been such since he was seven or so, but all the business about a Greek royal house has been nonsense for half a century at least. The Portuguese and French pretenders likely should be deleted on the same grounds as this, namely, they seem to have no notability beyond supposedly being in their nonexistent positions. Thee's still time. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is indeed true that the subject is not in fact a hereditary prince because such titles have been abolished, I would have to suggest that even if he is notable (I'll not offer opinion on that until I've looked into the matter further), it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to describe him as such, either in the article title or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not (amongst very many other things) a platform for advocacy for the restoration of German aristocratic ranks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, because the common name of a thing is not necessarily the same as its legal name. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not his name legally. Jahaza (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policy permits demonstrably false assertions of hereditary rank in article titles? That would appear to me to constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Besides the coverage the article subject got for his wedding back in 2009, he has been receiving coverage satisfying WP:SUSTAINED: Bunte, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Gala, Neue Presse, inFranken, Bayerischer Rundfunk, and L'Éventail. Also, whether or not the article subject is actually a prince or a noble has no bearing whatsoever on notability and getting a standalone page and neither does the content of the article itself. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at these, and they appear to be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources to "society blotter" type sources. I can't speak to the interview as it's paywalled, but IMO the most significant event in these articles that isn't "he got married" or "he baptized his kids" (neither of which really speak to notability) is https://www.np-coburg.de/inhalt.parkplatz-am-schloss-gesperrt-prinz-hubertus-greift-durch.b8c8c916-2a78-414e-9454-ee36d6482fe0.html , which talks about how a parking lot on his private property near Callenberg Castle that had previously been open to the public is now closed. That... might be worth a single line in Callenberg Castle... but isn't enough for notability IMO. SnowFire (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Having regional news sources cover a person's multiple life events, as in this specific case, is not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Only notable people get their wedding and their children being born covered in news sources. And this is expected, since his father is a public figure in Coburg and its region. StellarHalo (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When there is significant coverage, why is there only trivia in the article? As discussed above, there is no notability from the sources. A redirect to his father or his family would fulfill any encyclopedic needs. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does appear to satisy WP:GNG. That's all that matters. Any other claims are mere anti-monarchist POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an American I suppose I am supposed to an anti-monarchist, but whether or not Charles III ought to be king of the United Kingdom, the fact is that he does hold that position. Meanwhile I go back to this fellow's great-grandfather, who was the last man to actually be the duke, and I find he lost both his British and German titles as fallout from WW I. Everything since then is pretense. This man is not a prince, and it's rather difficult thing to work with sources which are playing along with the pretense, and even if one appeals to WP:COMMONNAME we are now culpable of participating in the fraud by calling him a prince. If he's notable as fake nobility, so be it, but I am dubious about that, and in any case, it is in that fake nobility which his only possible notability can lie. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fraud or pretense. People can call themselves whatever they like. A state may strip hereditary nobles of their titles for political reasons but that does not invalidate those titles, particularly since that state didn't give them the titles in the first place (these titles long predate the Federal Republic of Germany, or indeed any other version of Germany). And if reliable sources generally use those titles then COMMONNAME is satisifed. As I said, your argument is no more than IDONTLIKEIT. As to Americans being anti-monarchist, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you; many of them seem to be utterly obsessed with the British monarchy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here. COMMONNAME is maybe relevant if we decide the article is keep-able for how it should be titled. It's not relevant if the article doesn't meet the notability bar.

Obviously where the line is drawn will differ from person to person, but I'll say the same thing as above: if there was an article with the same level of sourcing and same degree of notable events on some rich scion but who had no recent-ish noble blood, should that article be kept? If people !voting "keep" here say yes, then fine, that's just differing notability standards, although I'm personally not a fan of articles mostly sourced to fawning society blotters. But I suspect that the result for such an article would generally be no, it'd get deleted. And if that's the case, then this article has the same exact issue, because objectively speaking Hubertus is just a scion of a wealthy family, at least according to current German law, like it or not. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could anyone who claim, that it passes WP:GNG, explain how the coverage constitute "significant coverage". From what I checked, it appears really trivial to me. I asked already above and as by now nobody answered, I want to clarify my question. Whoever claims that WP:GNG is satisfied should be able to explain, what is significant about the coverage per WP:SIGCOV. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look, titles or no, CBS News thought this fellow was relevant enough to publish their wedding photos. Official aristocracy or unofficial, clearly the name carries some weight. This is in-depth coverage, and no it doesn't make a difference that weddings are common.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/american-woman-marries-royalty/14/ BrigadierG (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If his notability arrises from the WP:ONEEVENT of his marriage with Kelly Rondestvedt, one could propose that this article is merged into his wife's, as there is no necessity for a standalone article. That is a compromise I could agree to. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the notability works the other way around. The marriage is covered because of the perceived prominence of the individual. There was nothing special about the wedding except the people it was between. BrigadierG (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Akuma Saningong

RooR

Henri Haupt

Richard Fritz Behrendt

Ralph Bernstein

Erento

French ship Gapeau (B284)

Lambert Hamel

Karin Vogel

Jacob Rott

Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany

Adrabaecampi

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also