Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Theodora von Auersperg


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC) As a clarifying note, my reading of the discussion is that even if the copyright issues were/are resolved, the consensus is still to delete. Jenks24 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Princess Theodora von Auersperg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable. No RS found in search of GBooks, MSBooks, GScholar, MSAcademic, GNews, NYT, & Wikipedia Reference.

I did not nominate for speedy deletion due to claim of inherited royalty, although I was unable to substantiate or disprove the claim. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete No independent sources, wild claims that are not verified, and reads like an advertisement. NJ Wine (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No supporting WP:RS can be found. Reads like an ad. LK (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - article was recently edited, resulting a copyright violation. I tagged the vio, so you'll have to look at the history to get past the copyright banner.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Kicking myself for not tagging it as an A7 and believing ther Royalty claims. No RS, delete. Buggie111 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded a complete new page per all instructions provided by Wikimedia, annotated the citings and submitted proof of copyright permissions. Please remove your nomination for deletion for this page. (Tonypanaccio (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC))
 * We apologize, but it's not that esay. THis discussion will run its course until an administrator decides if conesensus, that's more than just a majority, is to keep or delete this article. On a side note, pelase read WP:COI. Best of luck, Buggie111 (talk)


 * Delete In fact, I consider the current version almost a G11 speedy deletion for incurable promotionalism. There is also not a single reference there that is adequate for notability of a BLP.  DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the copyright permission did not grant a CC-BY or GFDL license, but gave limited permission to use on WP only. I restored the copyvio template (as it was removed by the editor instead of an admin), until the issue is resolved.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:10, 31 May 2012 (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.