Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Anselm, Duke of Urach
Karl Anselm, Duke of Urach[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Karl Anselm, Duke of Urach (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)
The notability of the subject of this article has been in question since 2010. The Lithuanian throne he is the third pretender to only existed for 8 months and was gone long before he was born. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep the article must improve by adding more reliable sources to establish notability. The historical and genealogical context justifies its presence after several improvements.Yakov-kobi (talk) 23:47, 01 July 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree - the genealogical and historical context is that his grandfather was elected controversially as King of Lithuania for all of 7 months and in that time he was never even in Lithuania. Wikipedia is not for hosting genelogical entries that do not support the readers understanding of a notable topic. Given the King of Lithuania topic played out long before Karl's birth I fail to see how this article can help with that.
- The Duke of Urach title is a courtesy title and I don't believe that's good ground for notability either. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It's just a genealogical entry with an uncited claim that he was a contender for the throne of Lithuania. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- Keep according to the reference from the arcticle he owns a huge junk of land (3598 acres), [1] the Greshornish Forestry estate.Axisstroke (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think land ownership is grounds for notability. I clicked around on the site of that reference and the first one i opened was https://web.archive.org/web/20090106212545/http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/ar/glenbyre.htm someone who owns a similar sized plot who is not notable because they own it. Another similarly sized plot: https://web.archive.org/web/20081204210115/http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/ar/turnalt.htm D1551D3N7 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on the size of the land ownership, in this case > 1000 ha, that is a considerable piece of land and hence it is notable. Moreover if it is a notable estate it is notable. Axisstroke (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does it depend on the size of the land ownership though? Do any policies exist that say land ownership is grounds for notability? If it were notable then it would be talked about in reliable sources and not just in a land ownership registry. This land in particular is a forest in a remote part of Scotland. The estate isn't notable, I can't find any sources that say much about it. There's this site that talks about a forest walk between Greshornish and Waternish https://www.visit-waternish.co.uk/greshornish-to-waternish-forests-walk/ and there is Greshornish House which is a hotel but I don't find these very compelling for the argument that the estate itself is notable and that by extension Karl would be. D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on the size of the land ownership, in this case > 1000 ha, that is a considerable piece of land and hence it is notable. Moreover if it is a notable estate it is notable. Axisstroke (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think land ownership is grounds for notability. I clicked around on the site of that reference and the first one i opened was https://web.archive.org/web/20090106212545/http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/ar/glenbyre.htm someone who owns a similar sized plot who is not notable because they own it. Another similarly sized plot: https://web.archive.org/web/20081204210115/http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/ar/turnalt.htm D1551D3N7 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- delete the article itself says the title Duke of Urach was abandoned in 1919, and this is nothing but pseudoaristocratic puffer which contributes nothing to the notability of the person. And there is no other claims of notability. WP:GNG is not satisfied either - Altenmann >talk 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This (as with other similar articles) -- is a merge candidate to the undersourced House of Urach#Dukes where he appears. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Owning land - large tracts or not - is not in itself notable. If the area of land (or parts thereof) happens to be notable then owning it still does not confer notability on the owner (WP:NOTINHERITED). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ownership passes WP:NRV and WP:GNG. The owner has full rights of his land unless of course in communism. Axisstroke (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The policies you mention are about notability of article subjects. If you mean that ownership contributes to notability, you are mistaken, there is no such Wikipedia rule. - Altenmann >talk 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ownership passes WP:NRV and WP:GNG. The owner has full rights of his land unless of course in communism. Axisstroke (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Owning land - large tracts or not - is not in itself notable. If the area of land (or parts thereof) happens to be notable then owning it still does not confer notability on the owner (WP:NOTINHERITED). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete per nom. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)