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. Very clear consensus that these rulers should be considered to be notable. Just Chilling (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isenburg-Kempenich

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A Google search doesn't turn up any decent sources for this article, which is wholly unreferenced. (There are also no interlanguage links and I find no mention of it on the German Wikipedia, with the full disclaimer that my German is a bit rusty.) I'm also including all of the Lords of Isenburg-Kempenich in my nomination, and will bundle them shortly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:Bundling all the rulers:

You need a search engine that speaks blackletter.
- Stammtafel der Herren von Isenburg-Kempenich at the Internet Archive
- Rosemann von Isenburg-Kempenich at the Internet Archive
I shall call for some help for you. Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant German Wikipedia article is at de:Kempenich (Adelsgeschlecht). Uncle G's sources certainly confirm the existence of these people. Merging them all together might be better than individual articles given the state of the sourcing, though. —Kusma (t·c) 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My Google finds sources too. And besides de:Kempenich (Adelsgeschlecht), there's de:Isenburg (Adelsgeschlecht). How complicated this stuff gets is evidences in the German Kempenich article, and note that all the links in the German article are blue: "Die Herren von Kempenich waren mit folgenden Adelsfamilien verwandt bzw. verschwägert: Bedburg, Blankenheim, Büdingen, Bürresheim, Dehrn, Dorndorf, Eschweiler, Hattstein, Hüchelhoven, Isenburg, Merenberg, Myllendonk, Müllenark, Neuenahr, Pyrmont, Reifenberg, Reifferscheidt, Rolmann von Sinzig, Rosenau, Sayn, Schonenberg, Schöneck, Solms, Spanheim/Sponheim, Virneburg, Boos von Waldeck, Wied". Drmies (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Minor principalities in Germany were at least quasi-sovereign states. They should certainly have articles. Whether each ruler should have one will depend on whether there is enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's problem is verifiability. This does not really assist on that score. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isenburg-Kempenich, unbundle bios (require individual consideration - some are probably notable - there are issues with the names for searching - they need individual consideration). I'm not sure this was an independent state of the Holy Roman Empire. However, the noble line does have a dewiki page (which I interlinked) - and they controlled this castle (and not insignificant territory around it) - a branch of this noble family. A google book search shows quite a few hits for "Isenburg-Kempenich".Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I wonder if the page is mis-titled. There is no Isenburg-Kempenich in the Historisches Lexikon der Deutschen Länder. Kempenich does not even have its own entry, but it is mentioned as a lordship. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that sourcing is a problem, but the various articles in the German Wikipedia and Google show that the main topic and the various names are (well, were) real, and in principal they are notable. There definitely are sources (books), but they are in German and it needs a lot of time and experts in the field to study them and add them as inline references to the various articles. If the bio articles can't be kept, I would suggest to merge them all into the main topic with redirects to give future authors at least a starting point, however, given the complicated structure of interconnections it seems to be more desirable to preserve the "network" already existing and therefore keep them all in separate articles.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2019 (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.