Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Sigismund of Prussia (1896–1978)

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. Thanks to Oleryhlolsson for finding the sources, this is what was needed. Tone 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sigismund of Prussia (1896–1978)

[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)

This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A German/European prince resetteling in Costa Rica, that is pretty unusual. Wikipedia would be a little more dull and less broad in perspective if there isn't room for an article like this. :-) Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 13:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep There seem to be a series of AfD nominations here just saying "JUSTNOTNOTABLE" about sourced article on various aristocrats. Some of them will slip through and get deleted because no-one has time to oppose all of them. But it shouldn't be done like this surely? Denzil1963 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Unlike many of the recent nominations, this person was born in Imperial Germany and was a member of a royal family in a country that recognised such titles for more than 20 years. Moving to Guatemala and then Costa Rica and dealing with honey is comparatively interesting, but should be sourced better. From the Spanish Wikipedia, I found this article in La Nación, written on the occasion of his son's death, which also claims he was a supporter of Anna Anderson's claim to be Anastasia Romanova. So there's probably something to write about, not just genealogy. —Kusma (t·c) 22:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. agreed that this is a reasonable exception DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ODD, WP:SIGCOV, my standards, Oleryhlolsson, Kusma, and DGG. Weirder than the average deposed royalty, this prince had an actual career after emigrating to Costa Rica. The short article is already more than a genealogical entry. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honest Question: Oleryhlolsson, Devokewater, Kusma, DGG, Bearian, What is notable about this person? What makes him "worthy of note", something that he would be known for if he wasn't part of this family. The policy suppliment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Monarchs and nobility says "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone."

There is an article about his death mentioned above is interesting, but its main point is that he lived an obscure, ordinary life.
Where he moved and lived is a curiousity and unusual, but not a cause of notability.
Being a businessman is not a cause for notability.

He seems to have been a good, ordinary person, that just happened to be part of a formerly royal family. I see one article that meets "Significant coverage" addressing the topic directly and in detail, and that again just points out he was an good, ordinary, obscure, person with an interesting family background.

I'm not going to bludgeon this, just wanted to make one final appeal before this is closed. // Timothy :: talk 11:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, I agree that the case for notability that has been made so far isn't strong. The lack of good sources is rather concerning (so far there seems to be quite a lot more about his son than about him), as one would expect a "royal" who does something slightly unexpected to be documented better in reliable sources. I wouldn't be too sad to see this deleted, but I also wouldn't be too surprised if somebody eventually digs up some WP:RS that turn this into a viable article. (I am assuming some notability instead of being able to prove it). —Kusma (t·c) 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As opposed to several nominations that were purely genealogies, this one has some potential to be kept, but I'd like to see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few royals of Prussia who lived throughout WW1 and WW2 and he resettled in Costa Rica. Surely makes him different than other ones. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aman Kumar Goel, Lots of members of royal families lived through WWI/2, and moving is something lots of people do. How does being different make them notable? Do you have any guideline that supports this?. // Timothy :: talk 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article seems to omit most of the subject's life. "In 1927, Prince Sigismund and his family resettled in Costa Rica. He planned to engage in banana and coffee planting on land he owned there. They were accompanied by only a governess, as the children were still young. Sigismund died in Puntarenas on 14 November 1978." So we hear what he planned to do when he was 30, but we don't know whether he actually did go into the banana and coffee planting business. And two sentences but 50 years later, he dies. If there are sources that discuss his life from age 30 to age 80, they need to be incorporated into the article. And if there are not, that's not a good sign for the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other things that I have been able to find are like this [1], sources that don't meet WP:RS, and don't appear to know much more about him. He appears to have lived a ordinary life. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Monarchs and nobility (a policy supplement) states "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone.". // Timothy :: talk 18:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "the banana and coffee planting business" - actually I now tend to believe, that the article in it's present form is somewhat misleading as to what kind of crops this Sigismund dealt with. Sigismund was an environmentalist long before this became "modern" and "fashionable", and he would most certainly not consider large scale banana planting as something usefull for the environment. He and his wife was widely known for their bees and honey. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I agree, he seems to be a notable, compared to the recent deletions Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it literally does not matter if he did absolutely nothing of even moderate importance in his life. He could have done nothing even remotely interesting, but that does not matter for notability purposes. What does matter is whether he passes WP:GNG, and that he does with the sources already in the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if he did absolutely nothing of importance, he could easily be included in some family tree article. For the purpose of encyclopedia, that is enough. --Tone 07:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a paper by a lecturer (PhD Natural Sciences for Development) from Veritas University in Costa Rica that tells the "whole" story of Prince Sigismund and his wife. I have to read this entire paper before I can make relevant improvments to the article. But for short he was (they were) not merely a "princely farmer" in Costa Rica. They were agricultural entrepreneurs and environmental researchers (the First Center for Agricultural Research and Biological Conservation at the private level in rural Costa Rica), established a Natural Sanctuary, focused on sustainability in their choise and development of technologies, they founded one of the first meteorological observation laboratories in the country, they educated and inspired the locals in the use of various agricultural and enviromental techniques (implemented innovative agricultural methods and processes), their choise of crops should be seen as a way of preventing monocultural agriculture. Among other contributions to the local region, he was also a road builder favoring development of the region. Apart from all this the prince is also mentioned in a number of books, but it's not at this point evident to me how much relevant biographical information, that can be extracted from these works. It would be books like:

Harald Eschenburg: Prinz Heinrich von Preußen. Der Großadmiral im Schatten des Kaisers. Heide 1989, ISBN 3-8042-0456-2.

Jürgen Plöger: Die Anfangsjahre der Kieler Hebbelschule. Ein Blick in die Kaiserzeit. Ludwig, Kiel 2002, ISBN 3-933598-42-7, S. 76 ff.

Karin Feuerstein-Praßer: Die deutschen Kaiserinnen. Piper, München 2006.

Ernst Dietrich Baron v. Mirbach: Prinz Heinrich von Preußen. Eine Biographie des Kaiserbruders. Böhlau Verlag, Köln/Weimar/Wien 2013. ISBN 978-3-412-21081-6, S. 549–558

Marie Stravlo: Mi amigo el Príncipe, biografía de Alfredo de Prusia. REA EDITORIAL, 2014. ISBN 978-9930-9520-0-9. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2020 (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.