Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Leiningen


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hermann Leiningen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I need your help with this one. The subject has been profiled by the Toronto Star and the National Post, prominent newspapers in Canada, yet I cannot help feeling that this does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The highlight of both articles is that he is a humble banker with prominent ancestors, which does not strike me as the sort of thing that needs to be reported in an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep In 2010, Leiningen accepted a posthumous tribute from Chabad-Lubavitch of Markham on behalf of his grandfather, Boris III of Bulgaria. The award was featured in a profile for Global's 16×9 (here, and here). That's notable, IMHO. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * keep almost all of the nobles cataloged by the many wikis are notable because of their "prominent ancestors". Wanderer0 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete getting coverage for accepting an award on behalf of someone else is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Recent edits to the article, under the guise of WP:V or WP:OR, read as attempts to justify the deletion request… Wanderer0 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The profile from 16×9 (here), and the web short from National Post (here), include explanations of Leiningen's full title and style, and his potential position in the line of succession, and his relation to so-called prominent ancestors. These items are also explained briefly in Eilers's biographical dictionaries on the Victorian descendants.
 * Reitwiesner's dated chart covers the line of succession, which was based on earlier work of historians A. C. Addington and Daniel A. Willis. The same chart was the basis for the pastel succession charts shown in the 16x9 profile. It appeared in Parade magazine in the San Antonio market late-2012, other magazines elsewhere.
 * Also, German nobiliary titles and styles are inherited by legitimate male-line descendants. Therefore, Leiningen is a Prince from Leiningen (Prinz zu Leiningen), not the Prince of Leiningen (Fürst zu Leiningen). Leiningen explain's this—somewhat—in the web short from the Post. Therefore, his daughters would be Princesses of Leiningen (Prinzessin zu Leiningen).
 * Following conventions since 1919, Leiningen's name would be recorded as Leiningen, Hermann Friedrich Fernando Roland Prinz zu if he naturalized as a German citizen, if he hasn't already.
 * That he is in the line of succession is sourced; that he follows a Princess Juliana of Leiningen is not. Prinz Hermann Friedrich Fernando Roland zu Leiningen was presented as his full name, which is dubious and not verified. We should not introduce him or his family as prince or princesses because those are neither their legal titles nor what they normally call themselves. Articles have better chances of being kept if original research is removed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article does has not does not include any O.R. Why do you insist that it has? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it contained information that was not present anywhere outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This stub article is an amalgam. of info. from various sources versus an original piece. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * keep re:, etc. Fostrdv (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, very barebones article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep My two-pence:           Rdzogschen (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thosbsamsgom, Wanderer0 and Rdzogschen. --Richiepip (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep- per above Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2020 (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.