Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher


 * 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 all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulf Bauscher, Berthold Bauscher, Franka Bauscher, Lorenz Bauscher
the subject's entry in wiki is by virtue of his being approx 128th in line to the British throne as a direct descendant of Queen Victoria. Not other claim to notability. I also nominate his younger brother, Berthold Bauscher, and Berthold's children Franka and Lorenz Bauscher Ohconfucius 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All Is it really necessary for this site to chronicle the geneology for every person with the slightest hint of royal blood? A recently reported study indicates that the common ancestor for every person currently on the planet probably lived less than 3,000 years ago.  So we might just as well chronicle the royal lineage of everyone. —  NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot, as per nom.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  All of them - Being born is not notable. Having an important ancestor is not. Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless they have done something notable, they should probably exist as a note in a line of succession article. StuffOfInterest 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all . Verifiable. In Wikipedia's fashion of thoroughness, we could as well have articles on the first 200/250 people in line for the British throne. --Thunderhead 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my opinion to merge into a single article for all people in the line of succession that details more how and why they're in that line. That would handle the relevant information in a better way than separate articles. --Thunderhead 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne, for everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Per NawlinWiki. Someone may come searching for information and it wouldn't hurt to lead them to the list. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Peripitus. WP:NOT the Almanach de Gotha and not a genealogical database. These don't fail WP:BIO, they don't even bother trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We have the list Line of succession to the British Throne, not every entry on every list deserves an article; that's often why we have lists. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- being in the line of succession to the throne is notable. Astrotrain 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unknown, even in Germany. °ڊ° Alexander 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete creating a redirect is asking for somebody to re-create the article. Claims that somebody is in the line of succession to the British throne beyond the first 39 places on the British monarchy website are not verifiable and original research.  Is there any evidence that this person is a Protestant, which they have to be to be in the line of succession?  PatGallacher 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne per NawlinWiki. Anything past the 100 mark is just ridiculous unless they have some achievements outside of being in line to the throne.  RFerreira 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect, verifiable but it seems that this information would be best handled in a single article. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no nobility and no notability. BlueValour 04:06, 19 August 2006 (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.