Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Robert von Brennen of Hanover


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Robert von Brennen of Hanover

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I think it's possible, that the article is a fake. The father Dennis is not a son of Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (1914–1987). In this case this article is Vandalism and author should be blocked. --Pitlane02 (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * His title Prinz Robert Patrick von Brennen das Sechste von der Haus von Dusseldorf is incorrect German, so it's most probably a fake. Delete. --Komischn (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article except that this person obviously doesn't exist. But there is plenty of precedent that a colourful name is sufficient for entitlement to a Wikipedia article. Hans Adler 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Basic inconsistency regarding place of birth (Düsseldorf or some hospital in the US?), neither reference mentions him and the access dates are back in 2008. I cannot find coverage sufficient to establish notability and although I am not sure what our standard is with respect to members of the (former) aristocracy, I believe that at least until he comes of age and preferably until he inherits something, right now his only possible claims to notability are literally inherited. So, not encyclopedic even if the article were improved to not contradict itself and to have valid refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (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.