Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/László Cseszneky de Milvány
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Tone 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- László Cseszneky de Milvány (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable member of nobility, no sourcing to support any individual claim to notability. All statements about this person's individual activities (merely claiming that he "supports" certain political organisations, not even that he has a leading role in them) are in fact unsourced. The only claim to notability is that this person is apparently the nephew of someone who nominally served as the puppet "prince" of a fascist puppet-statelet invented by the Italian occupiers during the WWII occupation of the Balkans, the Voivodship of Macedonia, during one month in 1943. The author's argument on the talk page, essentially claiming that this nominal title conveys on him an automatic degree of notability comparable to that of authentic European (ex-)royalty, strikes me as absurd. (Come to that, we don't even know whether the subject himself actually claims that nominal title for himself; this too is sourced only to non-reliable websites.)
The only other sources cited in the article are the private webpage of the subject's own family, and a few pages that deal with just that puppet statelet (but not the present subject, who was born after it had ceased to exist). No independent coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The arguments above are based on political POV. You can consider the Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia a puppet state, but for many people it was the realization of their ultimate aims, like for my grand-parents in Western-Macedonia. For us Macedonians and Aromanians oppressed by the Greek antidemocratic puppet state he is the only person in whom we can have hope. A member of our organization contacted him and he kindly answered that he supports the human rights of the minorities in Greece, but he has no political ambitions. Even so, de jure he is the legitimate claimant. To be considered claimant one does not need to claim actually a throne, as many other pretenders don't do either. From legitimist Bourbon perspective the Bonaparte or Murat dynasties were usurpators, but they are listed equally as pretenders. From our POV he is the legitimate and King Constantine and Greek presidents are usurpators and occupiers of our homeland. --Aleksveliki (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: thanks for clarifying what ideological agenda you are following in pushing for this article. It figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I respect your agenda, you have the right to think or say whatever you want (unless you live in the Greek "nation state" and belong to minorities), but please also respect my views which are not only mine, but represent the opinion of a growing number of minorities in Greece. --Aleksveliki (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For how much I can understand your point and sympathize with the Macedonian people, I am afraid that this discussion is going wide of its intended mark. We are not discussing the rights of the Macedonian people (which, incidentally, I'd consider fully worthy of an article if presented with a neutral point of view), but whether László Cseszneky de Milvány is worth a Wikipedia article - and, as noted below, I agree with the nomination in the fact that he is not. McMarcoP (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are right, but unfortunately the issue cannot be easily separated from political positions. On the other hand I also think that the head of an ancient noble family whose origins trace back to the early middle age is worth an article, and if in the top of all this he is also a potential claimant to a throne, however disputed the legitimacy of that state is, the need for an article is even more evident. How many articles we have about British aristocrats who have zero importance besides their title? I am ready to expand and improve the article but currently I am struggling with the translation of some sources. --Aleksveliki (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, that's not how we do things here, I'm afraid. Nobility may be inherited, but Wikipedia notability is not. What's notable here is the family as such (which has an article, quite rightly). An individual member of the family, even if he is its current "head", becomes a subject of an individual article only when he himself does something inherently notable, or at least gets a notable amount of public attention focussing on him for whatever reason. So far, we have nothing about him; he is Just Some Guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid I have to agree. He might be the "head" of a family who has claims on an European throne (whose legitimacy is not under discussion here), but what gives notability is public attention or an "official" role (that normally brings the same). I am aware that there is about a ton of British marginal members of the Royal Family who have their own articles, but this is because they are the focus of wide media attention (and it is not even the point whether this is deserved or not). Now, as far as non-Macedonians can know, he doesn't seem notable enough. Now, if there are sources that instead confirm his notability - very welcome. Still, I need to read more about the Voivodship of Macedonia - whatever the results of the present discussion. McMarcoP (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that this whole idea of him as a kind of figurehead representing some present-day political issue about Macedonian separatism or irridentism seems to be a private or entirely fringe concoction of the author himself, with no public exposure whatsoever. Or, who's the "we" of Aleks' claim above, and what is "our organisation" he speaks of? Any public coverage? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid I have to agree. He might be the "head" of a family who has claims on an European throne (whose legitimacy is not under discussion here), but what gives notability is public attention or an "official" role (that normally brings the same). I am aware that there is about a ton of British marginal members of the Royal Family who have their own articles, but this is because they are the focus of wide media attention (and it is not even the point whether this is deserved or not). Now, as far as non-Macedonians can know, he doesn't seem notable enough. Now, if there are sources that instead confirm his notability - very welcome. Still, I need to read more about the Voivodship of Macedonia - whatever the results of the present discussion. McMarcoP (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, that's not how we do things here, I'm afraid. Nobility may be inherited, but Wikipedia notability is not. What's notable here is the family as such (which has an article, quite rightly). An individual member of the family, even if he is its current "head", becomes a subject of an individual article only when he himself does something inherently notable, or at least gets a notable amount of public attention focussing on him for whatever reason. So far, we have nothing about him; he is Just Some Guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are right, but unfortunately the issue cannot be easily separated from political positions. On the other hand I also think that the head of an ancient noble family whose origins trace back to the early middle age is worth an article, and if in the top of all this he is also a potential claimant to a throne, however disputed the legitimacy of that state is, the need for an article is even more evident. How many articles we have about British aristocrats who have zero importance besides their title? I am ready to expand and improve the article but currently I am struggling with the translation of some sources. --Aleksveliki (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For how much I can understand your point and sympathize with the Macedonian people, I am afraid that this discussion is going wide of its intended mark. We are not discussing the rights of the Macedonian people (which, incidentally, I'd consider fully worthy of an article if presented with a neutral point of view), but whether László Cseszneky de Milvány is worth a Wikipedia article - and, as noted below, I agree with the nomination in the fact that he is not. McMarcoP (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I respect your agenda, you have the right to think or say whatever you want (unless you live in the Greek "nation state" and belong to minorities), but please also respect my views which are not only mine, but represent the opinion of a growing number of minorities in Greece. --Aleksveliki (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: thanks for clarifying what ideological agenda you are following in pushing for this article. It figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable in himself. His uncle might be highly notable for his part in Macedonian history, his father's position on the topic might be discussed but I would agree on his notability, but notability is not inherited. It would be enough to name-check him on his uncle's or father's article. Also, poorly sourced McMarcoP (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete per Fut. Perf's initial comment. --Laveol T 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Cseszneky. Jingby (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; WP:BLP applies also. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (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.