Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engelbertha Stroebele

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbertha Stroebele[edit]

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

... As Engelbertha Stroebele's supposed brother Friedrich Alfred Krupp was born only three months earlier than Engelbertha, the original research of this article is funny but ridiculous and wrong. Believe me, also in Germany women do not deliver every quarter ;-) Furter on, the name of the Lady is Engelbertha Stroebele and not Krupp. Her life is a nice memory to her family but not relevant for an cyclopedia. Significantly there is no article in the German part of Wikipedia. (RCasimir) Tönjes (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am adding to this nomination the following page about Engelbertha's husband, sourced only to David Stroebel's book, because no notability is asserted apart from his wife's supposed Krupp connection. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The only notability asserted is her supposed Krupp parentage, and the sourcing for that is dubious, to put it mildly. "Caroline Marchuck, telephone conversation with author" and "A total of 15 "revelations" passed down through six relatives within the Stroebele family" are not the reliable, published sources required by WP:Verifiability. The principal author, user Dstrob (talk · contribs), identifies himself as David Stroebel, descendant of the subject, author of the book cited, and Founder, Chairman and CEO of the "Engelbertha Krupp Foundation": this gives him a severe conflict of interest. The sections "Impact of banishment" and "Discovery of photograph" are pure speculation and original research. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I didn't do my homework on this after assisting the primary contributor to move the initial draft from his userpage to articlespace. Every single Google hit on the topic seems to lead back to the author's book, and the book itself has, as far as I can see, no significant secondary coverage. Therefore we can assume that this is original research. It may be that the author's theory might gain some traction and recognition in the future, but for now Wikipedia is helping led credence and notability to it, which is not our role. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. For being original research and a few details that don't fit. Her birthday only three months after her brothers birth. Her Husband J.J. Stroebele described as a shoemaker and Reserve Officer. A craftsman as an officer in the Prussian Army at 1870? No way, in this army with its officer corpse full of noble Junkers was it difficult even for well educated, wealthy sons of the middle class to get promoted to officer. --Ben Ben (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Factual errors (esp. regarding Prussian law system), poorly sourced (see above), doubtful relevance of the topic of the articles. The article might be recreated if the story should ever be proven to be correct.

In addition, both Stroebeles fail to meet the notability criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There is only one source (to which the news articles refer) and that one source has been published by a descendant of the person in question and who therefore is not independent. --Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2013 (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.