Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Tschugguel


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Tschugguel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The long name is wrong. In 1918 nobility and all related titles were banned in Austria. This person is also unknown and not relevant. There are no mentions in mainstream sources. Only a few minor radical catholic publications wrote about him, because he stole pagan statues, but this does not make him relevant. I guess Tschugguel wrote this article himself. A lot of useless information. He had Covid, so what? Oh and he "worked" for a tiny, now defunct party (what did he do?) that never achieved anything and that most Austrians never heard anything about. Oh,and he founded an "Institute" that has zero hits on Google, besides a Instagram page with 178 followers and a defunct ("Maintenance") homepage. This is just advertising. BarKochba555 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — BarKochba555 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep subject is notable, as established by sources cited in the article. The New York Times and Vanity Fair, as well as Crux, National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, and Catholic Herald, are just a few examples of credible media outlets used as sources for the article. As for the "long name", the lede already contains a note in the first sentence regarding the name and the use of an extinct/defunct title, which is not allowed in Austria. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This sentence is misleading. His real name can only be "Alexander Tschugguel", everything else is verboten by the law. Why should fantasy names and titles be in the first line of the article? --BarKochba555 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a discussion for the article's talk page, not a deletion nomination, which I mentioned on your talk page prior to this nomination. Not to mention it is covered by the note provided in the lede. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep notability is established. As an aside, the nom appears more like a personal vendetta and not a policy-based argument. Elizium23 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 17.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. If there is an issue with the name that is something to be worked out the discussion on the talk page - not through deletion. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. What??? the nominator you are WP:IDONTLIKE ??? VocalIndia (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2021 (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.