Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Magnus VI, Count of Solms-Wildenfels

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 redirect‎ to Solms-Wildenfels#Mediatized Counts of Solms-Wildenfels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Magnus VI, Count of Solms-Wildenfels[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Royalty fancruft and speculative genealogy. I am unable to find any indication in online sources that "Friedrich Magnus VI" is an encyclopedically notable individual. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merits further investigation. There are at least five book sources in English, German, French and Turkish that record details of this individual and his family that appear to line up with what is said in the article. However, I can't see the full entries online - someone would have to have access to the actual sources. Bermicourt (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Count of a county that no longer exists (and apparently hasn't since 1806)? That ~~isn't going to do it~~ doesn't count for anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to Solms-Wildenfels#Mediatized Counts of Solms-Wildenfels. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. While it's not exactly "fancruft", it is poorly sourced. On the other hand, he has claims to heading several important deposed royal families, so deleting this will erase the coding for a potentially valid article. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2023 (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.