Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since 2013 comments on the talk page question the notability and really poor sourcing of this bio. Germany does not recognize noble titles, and this person has not done anything to warrant an article on his own. Perhaps his name belongs on some list per WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha has not existed for quite a long time now. —Kusma (t·c) 15:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: highly notable. Not only as heir to the head of the royal dynasty that is the second most notable in Germany, but because of the British connection as well, given Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was the name of its ruling house until WW1. No, it's not a reigning house, but the dynasty retains enormous prestige, wealth, and estates, including Schloss Callenburg and Schloss Greinburg which are major tourist attractions. Surprisingly that deletion was even mooted. What next: the Hohenzollerns? http://www.sachsen-coburg-gotha.de/ http://www.schloss-callenberg.com/englisch/history/ Engleham (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no proper independent sources showing that a random Hohenzollern "prince" meets WP:GNG, of course their article should be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 12:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, Hubertus is not some random prince. He's the heir to the head of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. I can think of several reasons why the page is valuable even for those who would generally hold no interest in royalty per se. e.g. Tourists visiting the castles wishing to know about the dynasty heirs; or readers of the two recently published studies on German royalty-nazi collaboration wishing to know more about how their descendants are tracking today. etc etc. I also checked the edit history of this page and count at least 50 authenticated editors alone who have worked on it. So that is evidence that it is of interest to quite a wide circle. The content I find eye-glazing and can be improved, but Wikipedia allows unlimited pages, and unless an entry is totally irrelevant, one should always err on the side of caution and retention, as it's the equivalent of bookburning. Also, Wikipedia relies on good will, so dumping the hard work of many editors (how many cumulative manhours went into this?) should be especially avoided whenever possible. And as the edits indicate, the topic clearly matters to many. I also believe the comment of Mr Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair is relevant for royals: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Engleham (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited and fails WP:GNG.--Donniediamond (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person without even a proper claim to any title at all. Note, moreover, that there is possible canvassing going on regarding this AfD (sigh). And I am not fully convinced his dad is all that notable either. S-C-G basically ended after WW I and the end of the German monarchy and formal titles, and renunciation of the S-C-G name by the current Windsors of the UK. About as important as the current "Stuart claimants" to the UK throne. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as head of a defunct or deposed dynasty. Such articles become a target for redirects and mergers, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the title of the article and a double-check that there are references to the topic confirms that this topic is significant within the encyclopedia. The deletion argument that the topic "has not done anything" is not referenced to a Wikipedia guideline or essay. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - all the votes above seem to be based more on gut feeling than an actual hard look at sources, so I think this is the best compromise. The notability guidelines for people don't say anything on royalty, even though this chap is a direct descendant of Prince Albert. The only substantial source I unearthed outside the numerous ones confirming his name, date of birth and peerage, is a Hello Magazine piece on his wedding, and I wouldn't stoop to using that as a source even in these desparate times. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge. Holds a fake title – Germany has no nobility any more – which makes the article essentially fictional. He is not otherwise notable, judging by the coverage cited. Sandstein 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- His title has a historic background and can be used as a courtesy title. He also has title Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) as his legal surname. Fake title is more a title that is self-invented and without any legitimate historic background. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a fake title would be one he'd awarded himself or had made up. His title is very much not a fake and not fictional. Just because Germany has "decided" (without, let's remember, any popular vote on the issue) it wants to be a republic doesn't invalidate historic titles held by its aristocrats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a 3 second Google for some recent news about him. Here's the stories. He's been hosting ERII. To suggest he's not notable when he can draw media attention in SIX countries, clearly has no basis in the reality Google is bringing up – whatever you might wish to call him. https://www.google.de/#q=hubertus+%2B+%22saxe-coburg&tbm=nws Engleham (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no time for royalty whether they are reigning or claimants, but there is no question that this one is notable. He has attracted interest and as others have said tourists may want to know about him. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as prominent German royal and future Head of very important House. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prominent royal who heads an important house. It is utterly irrelevant whether Germany officially recognises noble titles or not; it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.