Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim of Furstenburg


 * 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. Suggest talk page discussion on possible moving to more appropriate page name Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Joachim of Furstenburg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of importance in the article or on the internet. Rootsweb is not a reliable source as it is a self-publishing genealogy site! Night of the Big Wind talk  14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Beeing a Count alone is not enough for an article. (Yes, Count - not Prince. And his name is Fürstenberg, not ...burg. He is alreadey listed in Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg. See refs there for name and title.--Ben Ben (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename and keep. Sounds to me as if the county linked by Ben Ben was one of the independent German states (many counties were independent); if so, he was a monarch on the level of kings in other countries, and such a status would definitely make him pass WP:POLITICIAN.  Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: One of his successors was raised to principality, see Fürstenberg (principality). He died as a Count, 69 years before that. Hope the year is right, then at least one fact would be right in this copy of an rootsweb entry. Rename and redirect to Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg? --Ben Ben (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject's precise position in the arcane pecking order of the Holy Roman Empire doesn't matter - he was sovereign in his realm. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The question of whether he was technically sovereign does not matter. Did he hold a significant political office? Clearly so, and if we accord notability to mayors of large municipalities, members of provincial legislatures, etc we have to accord it here. --AJHingston (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2011 (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.