Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (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 delete. Little evidence of independent notability has been provided here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[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)

Although as a general rule I would be cautious about making a second nomination of an article which survived an earlier deletion discussion, consensus seems to be changing in favour of deleting these articles on deposed royal families. Simply being the supposed heir apparent to the head of a rather minor former royal family which was deposed back in 1918 is a very weak claim to notability, also raised issues about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP. PatGallacher (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , being "heir" to a non existent position doesn't make someone notable. The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)Smeat75 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not even clear that the heir to every princeling in Germany would have been default notable back when the princelings held power, being heir to a princeling positions abolished several decades before your birth is not even remotely close to a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This family is historically notable and many people will find current descendants interesting, which is part of the reason for Wikipedia. Thorwald (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:GNG, and the article in its current state fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. VocalIndia (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that we should err on the side of caution in this debate. I see nothing offensive or wrong in the article as it stands. Also it is a stub that needs to be improved, and material could/should be gathered from other sources, especially foreign language material. This entry appears closely related to an entry on French wikipedia. Deleting the article now, and especially because there has been a previous attempt to delete which it survived does not give a chance to improve the article. Some important policies can be brought to bear here. esp wikipedia:Overzealous deletion#Lack of familiarity with the subject WP:LACK Obscurity does not mean lack of notability. WP:OBTOP The geographic scope is wide. The house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is historically and currently linked to the histories and governance of many European countries across two or more centuries including Germany, Britain, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Romania. Most of the countries in the First World War were led by members of this family. The very subject of the article has featured in non fiction films and documentaries as an interviewee on European and British history.

Removing this stub type article does not speak of a global perspective rather a North American concept of royal dynasties as irrelevant and superannuated , (even though many diverse cultures globally still regard royal dynasties as important and relevant) . Notability is not temporary = whilst the subject as discussed here may appear unnotable to the anglozone, he is linked geographically and historically into a larger and more historically notable network, and represents a present day manifestation of this phenomenon WP:NOTTEMPORARY

Also recall these arguments on Wikipedia "Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." WP:UNKNOWNHERE Experts in European history are better able to make a call on this article. I would also endorse the arguments to keep made by Thorwald above. Bebe Jumeau (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do know a bit of French and Spanish, I have had a look at the articles in these Wikipedias, they don't say much more than this article. I note that he does not even have an article in German. PatGallacher (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2020 (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.