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 DeleteJERRY ^talk _contribs 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter stanzeleit

[edit]

Er, this man claims to be the son of Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (a mentally disabled cousin of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) and of Michael I of Romania... Certainly a hoax. Delete page and lock to prevent recreation, as with the properly spelt form of Dieter Stanzeleit. Charles 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. Charles 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appears to be a more complete article at rowiki: ro:Dieter Stanzeleit. I can't read it, but someone who can should probably check to see if there's anything significant there. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Romanian, but the only source is the man's website, which is a hoax, given his claimed parentage of a Bowes Lyon family and royal Romanian married couple... Incidentally, Michael I of Romania today issued a new family statute which states, without a doubt, that only the people listed are members of the family (his father fathered an illegitimate son, but Michael has not). Charles 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom and total lack of reliable sources. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this, from the Scottish Daily Record and this from Ziua appear to establish notability. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I counter with the case of Rosario Poidimani, subject of a deleted article here and also that the article does not support notability. Charles 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please provide a link to that deletion discussion, thank you~~! 75.195.129.116 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found them myself Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Note that the article is now an anchored redirect to a section of Hilda Toledano. 75.195.129.116 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read those discussions I don't think the case is equivalent. Rosario Poidimani had no independent sources that those discussions could find, here we seem to have found two. I equivocate using seem because I don't have a subscription to the one newspaper and I don't read Romanian for the other, so I can't actually read either.75.195.129.116 (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are Portuguese language news results for Poidimani, but it doesn't warrant an article. The fact that an imposter/fraud (not a basis for deleting an article) shows up in the odd newspaper article or two doesn't make him notable and encylopedia-worthy. I can think of a number of people who have been the subject of newspaper articles who are not notable. If that is the only basis for making an otherwise non-notable person notable, we would have Wikipedia articles on everything that has ever been mentioned in a newspaper. Charles 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO states, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". The guideline places the stipulations on this that the coverage should not be trivial and that it should not be related to a one time event. The sources cited here seem to be non-trivial (again, I can't assess them properly due to lack of a subscription and lack of understanding of Romanian) and this also doesn't seem to fall under the umbrella of a one time event. It is, of course, only a guideline and we can override it if we think we have good reason to. 75.195.129.116 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an otherwise unremarkable crank. No independent sources. Lankiveil (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Even if it is true (that this man claims to be of royal lineage), there is no assertion of notability in the article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are the individual's own website; in order to retain this wiki-article, somebody would have to show that there have been newspaper articles or other material written about this individual. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as appearing to fail WP:BIO and WP:RS generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 13:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hoax or not, he may be notable. He's been mentioned in the Scottish Daily Record & Sunday and there appear to be other reliable sources(e.g. [1]), but I'm not sure because I don't read German or Romanian and can't determine if they're primary or not. 75.195.129.116 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (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.