Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothea von Velen

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. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea von Velen[edit]

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

Hoax. Only one source is cited - a book that contains neither the words "Dorothea" nor "Velen". Her name does appear in any books, nor does she appear anywhere in the German Wikipedia (which is odd, for a supposedly influential German figure). Creator has not edited Wikipedia since 2014. French and Swedish versions are just translations of the English and include no extra info or references. Smurrayinchester 08:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD "Find sources" button found this article from 2016 which mentions her in passing, but which - according to the original manuscript - copied that information from Wikipedia (see footnote 22). This is just an example of WP:CITOGENESIS. She does not appear anywhere in JSTOR, which is v odd for a historical figure. Smurrayinchester 08:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I cannot find sources to corroborate any details in the article. In particular, there are plenty of reasons (mostly political) Johann Wilhelm issued the Religionsdeklaration of 1705 that have nothing to do with a mistress; while Montesquieu wrote about coverture, I don't find any intersection between Montesquieu and von Velen; I don't find any Otto Alexander as bailiff or amtmann of Seltz; I don't see anything about Charless III Philip expelling a mistress of his brother from the palace; and I don't find any mention of her memoirs or of a book with that title or a likely German, French, or Dutch translation of it, and I don't see any association of either elector with seances or the occult. I would like to AGF regarding the source in the article, and not having the book and not being sure about it I only !vote weak delete, but it looks to me like the source may have to do with Montesquieu and not with von Velen. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claims in this article call for strong sources and specific sources and none are given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 11:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax unless more reliable sources are provided. I am suspicious of the book cited as the German for Charles is not Carlos (Spanish). If genuine, I would expect someone would have found further sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously hoax.no evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find an ounce of notability anywhere. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.