Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Count Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide[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)

Not notable. Article appears to contain no reliable secondary sources. Similar article was deleted in Jan 17 for lack of notability. Recommend merging into House of Iturbide, which was the decision last time. Flyte35 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as standalone article - head of a Royal House and covered in various independent news sources, Excélsior, Milenio, Noticieros Televisa and books Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and The Imperial House of Mexico: The House of Iturbide -dwc lr (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we confine the article to the information covered in independent news sources Excélsior, Milenio, and Noticieros Televisa, it appears that would leave us with about two lines about this subject. That could easily be merged into House of Iturbide. That's why we merged the article the last time this came up. Flyte35 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I seem to recall a consensus that heads of defunct monarchies are presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any such discussion. This seems to fail basic notability guidelines for people, since the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited, but if there was some prior discussion about this, that would be interesting to see.Flyte35 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see the argument, that a person first in line for a defunct throne shouldn't be notable per se. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read the keep !votes above and the responses thereto, I concur in that consensus: heads of deposed dynasties are notable ipso facto in real life as reflected in coverage of their claims and/or doings, and a list of coverage having been provided in earlier discussion means that sources are available for an article distinct from general inclusion in House of Iturbide. There has been discussion of coverage of royalty, reigning and deposed, in the past, for e.g. here, that I think is more compelling and useful than the blanket Notability is not inherited essay (not a guideline), because it recognizes and accepts what people do find notable, rather than attempting to restrict Wikipedia articles to what we are told we ought to consider notable. FactStraight (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's relevant. The discussion you're citing has to do with the decision to retain an article about someone whose father actually was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979. Richard von Götzen seems to be the great-great-great grandson of someone who ruled Mexico for 11 months in the 1820s; it's hardly equivalent. The discussion you cite also pertains to a woman with at least 10 articles from reliable secondary sources about her. She is notable. This person is much more obscure. The fact that the decision in that case was to keep the article doesn't mean being a member of a family with some claim to any throne is notable and worthy of an article. It's the lack of secondary sources here that are a problem. Flyte35 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2018 (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.