Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Anhalt-Mühlingen


 * 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. No prejudice towards redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Principality of Anhalt-Mühlingen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fixing a malformed AfD nomination. The rationale for deletion is below, copied from this AfD page where it was posted in an errant manner (added on as another section). I have no opinion regarding the topic at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Could someone delete this page, because there has never been a principality Anhalt-Mühlingen. The so-called prince Anton Günther lived with his family from 1705 until 1714 in the castle Großmühlingen, but he never became prins of his own (semi-autonomous)  principality around the exclave Großmühlingen. The German Wikipedia and the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie do not mention Mühlingen as a principallity, neither as a side=line of the House of Anhalt-Zerbst. Bean 19 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)"
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When researching the various divisions of Anhalt I came across the corresponding article on the Dutch Wikipedia. I couldn't find any sources to back up the existence of Anhalt-Mühlingen as a semi-independent principality. Biographies of it's supposed prince Anton Gunther, don't mention the creation of a cadet branch of Anhalt-Zerbst in 1667. Sir Iain (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources don't confirm what is written in the article. They might barely hint at the mere existence of the Principality -- if those sources are reliable they don't look it -- but nothing like the detailed information concerning when it was founded by whom and why. Whoever wrote the article either made this information up, or neglected to leave the source used in writing the article. Given the problems mentioned above, and the inability to verify anything, going with a delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete While I don't think the creator of this article was making anything up, I do think they may have been misinterpreting their sources. The one claimed prince, Anthony Günther, was certainly a prince and he seems to have owned Schloss Mühlingen - but, so far as I can make out, just as a landowner and not as a sovereign prince. In fact, Mühlingen seems to have been part of the County of Barby until the county's division in 1669 between the Elector of Saxony and Karl, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, Anthony Günther's elder brother. It would probably have been possible, at this time or later, for Karl to have handed sovereignty over Mühlingen to Anthony Günther - but I can find nothing that even hints that this happened. And, by the way, the putative 1667 partition of Anhalt-Zerbst, and thus the existence of the Principality of Anhalt-Dornburg, seem to be subject to much the same doubt. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anthony Günther, Prince of Anhalt-Mühlingen. For UK peerage articles where the title became extinct with the death of the first peer, we have commonly redirected the article on the peerage to its only holder.  Whatever the status of the "principality" there was a prince who bore the title.  I do not know enough of German history to know how far this was a mere title and how far the prince actually drew revenues from the area from whihc he took his title.  The Principality of Anhalt-Dornburg will be more difficult to deal with since the title was hels by several persons successively.  I would suggest that we keep that, becasue it draws together successive holders of the title, like articles on UK peerages.  Whether or not the title conferred sovereignty, the title existed and that needs to be explained.  If it did not confer sovereignty, the appropriate course is to explain that in the article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2013 (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.