Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohenzollern impostors


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hohenzollern impostors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I find it hard to see how the article, in its current edition, is notable. First, the family called Fosse lacks more than limited national fame (within genealogical groups et cetera), virtually unknown elsewhere in Europe, cf. marginal press coverage internationally. Second, I understand that the family's good-faith assumption of Hohenzollern descent is based on a 100-year-old family tradition rather than being invented today. While not approached in a scientific manner, I can't find any indication that their quest for an answer involves any intent of ill-will or fraud, only a solid portion of inexperience with genealogical working methods. My stance is that it's impossible to have Wikipedia functioning as a dragnet catching and commenting every single individual or family who might ever happen to mention, suggest or even dare to investigate a possible family link to royalty. The article's title is notable per se, the article isn't, as its current edition has been created specifically to promote a family that doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nick Domran — username (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Domran's very first edit was to create this page. He has made edits on no other topic.  I don't think that I have ever seen this editing pattern before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick Domran (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Nick Domran (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Nick Domran (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Nick Domran (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep with probable rename. As it currently stands, this really is an article about the Fosse family, rather than anyone and everyone who has claimed Hohenzollern descent (compare the article on the various Romanov claimants, where there are several listed claiming connections to several different members of that family). That being said, the subject seems to pass GNG, per the sources in the article - which I'll admit to not having the precise language to read, but with a couple of related languages it looks eminently in-depth where coverage is concerned. Concerns regarding limited international coverage really don't amount to much, as sources don't have to be in English and frequently aren't. The fact that the family involved may not have understood genealogy is also neither here nor there, since the world is full of notable people who achieve that standard despite (or because of) not understanding how given fields operate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Book length treatment of the Fosse case mentioned in the body. Passes GNG. Article needs to be renamed after this AfD closes, presuming a Keep. Carrite (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is this book? I can only see two newspaper articles cited. —Kusma (t·c) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. In reviewing this article, it appears I mistook the newspaper feature article for a book. I still believe that this article, appropriately renamed, passes GNG — although by a much more narrow margin than I previously thought. Carrite (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename → Hohenzollern illegitimate descendants, conditioning that WP:BLP violations remain under control. Nick Domran (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the article, they are not related to the Hohenzollerns at all. "Impostors", while possibly problematic from a BLP point of view, is not as clearly wrong as "illegitimate descendants". —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this independently notable from House of Hohenzollern? Why wouldn't descendants, legitimate and illegitimate, be covered there summary style instead? It's not like two sources alone are enough to warrant a split. (not watching, please ping ) czar  05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's independently notable when the claimants are actually not Hohenzollerns, despite having believed themselves to be, rather than simply being illegitimate descendants. Compare House of Romanov with Romanov impostors, for example. I may be in the minority, but I wouldn't suggest combining the latter into the former. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Romanov is a totally different case, though. Where are the other claimants to Hohenzollern heritage? If minor or non-existent, the coverage isn't significant enough by these two sources to warrant covering the Fosse case separately from Hohenzollern lineage. Essentially, this should get a sentence or two as an aside wherever Hohenzollern descendants are discussed. I'd support a merge to that effect but otherwise I don't see why keeping this separate is a good idea. czar  15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Harry Domela. Nick Domran (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which was just added without sourcing? My point remains. Either this stuff is merged somewhere or deleted, but I see no standalone notability for "Hohenzollern illegitimate descendants". czar  20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, news story that has made no impact outside Norway that does not make the Fosse family notable. —Kusma (t·c) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * International coverage and impact is not a requirement of notability, only that multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability exist. Carrite (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not write about everything that reliable sources write about. Any playground in a public park gets written about in reliable newspapers every time it is renovated or when too much broken glass is found there, but that is no reason for us to do so. We also deliberately exclude lots of sports events despite there being coverage in multiple reliable sources... —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I am concerned that I could not find anything about this case in German media at all, although there is a substantial interest in juicy stories about royalty in certain parts of the German press. A notable story connected to the Hohenzollerns should have someone writing about it in German. —Kusma (t·c) 14:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Being "big in Germany" isn't the bar for coverage to be cleared here, being a subject of multiple pieces of coverage anywhere is. The story is significant on a national level in Norway. Admittedly, one more good story on the topic would be nice to find — the pretensions of this family to the throne are pretty extensively blogged about, which of course does not enter our source counting here. But this is not a "playground in a public park" sort of topic. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, most playgrounds are more interesting than "man claims to be related to dead royalty, but isn't". —Kusma (t·c) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weakest possible keep and rename → Hohenzollern illegitimate descendants, conditioning that WP:BLP violations remain under control. When reading the essence of the article, I don't find anything notable. It's an exciting story, indeed, but hardly notable. Even though they aren't biological descendants, their ancestor Anders Fosse claimed to be one. This might defend inclusion, either in the article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. A problem is that Anders Fosse's alleged claim is known through his grandson only: the same person who initiated everything. I find it problematic that Anders Fosse's alleged claim lacks his own words, instead relying on a grandson who retrospectively has shown self-interest in claiming Hohenzollern descent. Without accusing anyone of anything, attributing a claim to a deceased person is not an historically unknown way of backing contemporary personal ambitions, and it's also easier to assert something uncomfortable or controversial via a proxy. This is not an obvious keep but a weakest possible keep, and if the article is deleted, it will probably not be missed by many, cf. a total lack of internal references on Wikipedia. Nick Domran (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article is not about Hohenzollern descendants, neither about legitimate or illegitimate ones, why would you choose that title? —Kusma (t·c) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that because the Fosses aren't impostors, renaming the article is a condition for keeping it. Nick Domran (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: In general, I dislike this type of repositories because they are duplicative, increasing the risk of erroneous information being reproduced and not being corrected (not least considering the already dubious nature of such articles plus sources), whereas I prefer to gather all such information in one place. Thus, there shouldn't be a Hohenzollern impostors article but a Hohenzollern impostors category to include independently notable articles like Harry Domela.—This brings about a new question: Are the Fosses notable enough for their own BLP article which could be included in Category:Hohenzollern impostors? The way I perceive it, the creator of this article has established a Fosse BLP under false name in order to avoid BLP criteria. If the Fosses are eligible for their own article, the contents should (promtly) be moved to Fosse family (Bergen, Norway), Fosse–Hohenzollern case or similar. If the Fosses are not eligible for their own article, they are perhaps not eligible for an article-length section. Nick Domran (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding secondary sources, WP:BASIC states that notability requires 'significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject'. My question is whether two is multiple. In order to substantiate a keep, there should perhaps be one more source, preferably in English or German. Nick Domran (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Hopefully I don't violate rules on a technicality or anything now. I am German, and I have never heard about either the Fosse family case or other Hohenzollern impostors (=people who illegitimately and/or in bad faith that they are descended from/related to the Hohenzollern family). We in Germany don't even debate about Hohenzollern impostors except maybe for some remnant monarchists or nobility scientists, genealogists or enthusiasts who love to know who is of Hohenzollern descent and who isn't. But this is not a topic in German media. --ObersterGenosse (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. the question at issue here is not whether the Fosse family of Bergen, Norway is or is not descended from an illegitimate child of a Hohenzollern, it is whether this alleged illegitimate descent claim  meets WP:GNG.  If more sources exist, I can't find them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per my questions and comments above czar  11:03, 22 November 2017 (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.