Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966)[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility. Such titles do not confer notability, see WP:MONARCH. The contents of the article are almost entirely genealogical, see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BIO, and a Google News search for his German name (Sigismund von Habsburg-Lothringen) reveals a grand total of one local newspaper article about him donating laptops to a primary school. It's also worth noting that he has no article in the German-language Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't seem to be notable. CT55555 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing beyond genealogy in his article, and evidently no SIGCOV elsewhere either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we need to rid Wikipedia of deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. All we have and all we can find are simple, routine listings of genealogy, such as this and this, a 1999 cry in The Times about a social event, and then nothing. A one-time editor self-styled as "SigismondoAL" contributed to the article a fine portrait, which only amplifies the promotional character of the text. -The Gome (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2022 (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.