Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Daniel of Saxony

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. Tone 09:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Daniel of Saxony[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)

Royal House of Saxony was deposed at end of WWI, being heir to one of a number of supposed heads does not confer notablity. PatGallacher (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion: The subject's notability extends beyond his being heir to a deposed monarchy, as described in the article and summarized in the lede.--Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Dr.bobbs and there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of the deposed status of the Saxon Thrones, the thousand year old House of Wettin is still very much in existence. Thus, Prince Daniel's status as disputed but nevertheless heir to the Head of the House is of encyclopedic relevance. The article is also sourced in the Prince's entrepreneurial matters and the fact that he was one of the candidates in contention to become King of Poland, which even though was Polish monarchist propaganda, is not something you see everyday. All in all the article as a whole is notable enough to remain in Wikipedia. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sourcing is atrocious, and "some crazy people would like him to be King of Poland, but he doesn't believe in monarchy" (which is what one of the sources say) is not the same as "he was a candidate to become King of Poland" (apart from the fact that Poland hasn't been a monarchy for a very long time either). Are there any proper WP:RS for this WP:BLP content? —Kusma (t·c) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have quite clearly stated in my entry above that the entire King of Poland extravaganza is nothing more than Polish monarchist propaganda. But even as preposterous as it may be (as Poland is a Republic) you don't see every second prince from a former royal family being asked to become titular king of a foreign nation, even if it is by a niche group of fanatics. And even without this entire Poland segment, the prince is still an important member of the House of Wettin. But I do agree on one point that the article definitely needs to be sourced more reliably. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Dr.bobbs and TheRedDomitor. This one is Not "royaltycruft". 103.200.134.151 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above by Dr.bobbs and TheRedDormitor, the subject's notability is only partially based on the disputed monarchial claim. In any case, it is only the OP's opinion that this claim does not confer notability. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, he is notable apart from his inheritance Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 4 September 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.