- 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 redirect to Prokop of Moravia with the option of merging worthwhile content. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
George of Luxembourg
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- George of Luxembourg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There don't seem to be any reliable sources about this George of Luxembourg, and even if he would be verifiable, he hardly did anything noteworthy. The source given is a master's thesis, which is normally not accepted as a reliable source. Even then, it names a Jiri, no last name, and doesn't mention the inheritance. He just existed, if we are to believe this source, but isn't notable. Fram ( talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and Luxembourg. Fram ( talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete due to a lack of an assertion of notability. I would also note that he's been present as a link from
Prokop of Moravia since the article was created last year by the same author. There's a number of references listed there but all lack in-line citations and I'm unable to read Czech or access Czech books. If anyone is capable of doing a
WP:BEFORE perusal of those it might be fruitful. --
(loopback)
ping/
whereis
10:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just adding I'm also ok with a merge presuming we can get some source of his existence beyond the master's thesis. -- (loopback) ping/ whereis 18:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'll agree that I did source this article inadequately - I used the one reference I had quick access to after translating the unsourced Czech article. Fwiw, the thesis cites Moravský markrabě Jošt (1354-1411) by Václav Štěpán for the claim. Searching 'Jiří Lucemburský' (Czech for George of Luxembourg) yields some more hits,
such as in Lucemburkové by Jan Bauer, which states "Poslední Lucemburk po meči byl zřejmě Jiří Lucemburský, nemanželský syn markraběte Prokopa, který zemřel jako benediktinský mnich v klášteře v Monte Cassinu".(My search was picking up text from a cs.wiki mirror, whoops!) As for notability, I assumed being the last living member of the very notable House of Luxembourg was worthy of inclusion. Mbdfar ( talk)- Best I can find digitized is another thesis that states George was a bastard of Prokop who became a monk and died in Augsburg in 1457, citing Lucemburkové: česká koruna uprostřed Evropy by Šmahel and Bobková (2012) for the claim. Unfortunately, I do not have direct access to either Lucemburkové or Moravský markrabě Jošt mentioned above. Anyway, I'm sure the only son of the Margrave of Moravia was notable to contemporaries, but it seems few sources mentioning him have been digitized. Mbdfar ( talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prokop of Moravia where all the content in this stub already exists. Mccapra ( talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Prokop of Moravia. Srnec ( talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Prokop of Moravia. This article contains a little on this subject's career, which would be worth adding to that article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment whoa whoa whoa a master's thesis isn't a reliable source? Then why do we have
Template:Cite thesis? Don't professors usually engage pretty heavily with theses submitted with their names referenced as "advisor," which is kinda like a peer review except it's a boss review? I'm so confused.
jengod (
talk)
23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, third bullet point, especially the last sentence. Fram ( talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment 2 I guess merge is fine but isn't being an
endling of a family they named a whole country after kinda inherently notable?
jengod (
talk)
23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERITED, there are very few things which are considered inherently notable, and happening to be (perhaps, unverified) the last member of a family which once gave its name to a country (but personally having nothing to do with that) is not sufficient, no. Fram ( talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment 3 I'm also concerned we're exhibiting bias against non-English-lang sources here. Here some articles we have about noble-born monks or nuns who were not otherwise particularly famed for their accomplishments etc:
Paweł Dembski,
Andrzej Spot,
Catherine of Portugal (nun),
Joan of Navarre (nun),
Princess Charlotte of Monaco (1719–1790),
Ferenc Farkas (Jesuit priest),
Jīva (nun),
Louise of Savoy (nun),
Bridget of York,
Mary of Woodstock,
Princess Seishi, etc.
jengod (
talk)
00:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- No such bias on my part, I use such sources all the time. But no good sources have been presented here, English or not. And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, frustrating as it may be. Other articles may be worse (or not, I haven't checked) and be left alone, and this one get's AfD'ed. That's the luck of the draw, we try to enforce our policies and guidelines somewhat consistently but especially among older articles there is still a lot of work to do.
Fram (
talk)
08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK well you do you. jengod ( talk) 15:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- No such bias on my part, I use such sources all the time. But no good sources have been presented here, English or not. And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, frustrating as it may be. Other articles may be worse (or not, I haven't checked) and be left alone, and this one get's AfD'ed. That's the luck of the draw, we try to enforce our policies and guidelines somewhat consistently but especially among older articles there is still a lot of work to do.
Fram (
talk)
08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Prokop of Moravia with the option of merging worthwhile content. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
George of Luxembourg
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- George of Luxembourg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There don't seem to be any reliable sources about this George of Luxembourg, and even if he would be verifiable, he hardly did anything noteworthy. The source given is a master's thesis, which is normally not accepted as a reliable source. Even then, it names a Jiri, no last name, and doesn't mention the inheritance. He just existed, if we are to believe this source, but isn't notable. Fram ( talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and Luxembourg. Fram ( talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete due to a lack of an assertion of notability. I would also note that he's been present as a link from
Prokop of Moravia since the article was created last year by the same author. There's a number of references listed there but all lack in-line citations and I'm unable to read Czech or access Czech books. If anyone is capable of doing a
WP:BEFORE perusal of those it might be fruitful. --
(loopback)
ping/
whereis
10:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just adding I'm also ok with a merge presuming we can get some source of his existence beyond the master's thesis. -- (loopback) ping/ whereis 18:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'll agree that I did source this article inadequately - I used the one reference I had quick access to after translating the unsourced Czech article. Fwiw, the thesis cites Moravský markrabě Jošt (1354-1411) by Václav Štěpán for the claim. Searching 'Jiří Lucemburský' (Czech for George of Luxembourg) yields some more hits,
such as in Lucemburkové by Jan Bauer, which states "Poslední Lucemburk po meči byl zřejmě Jiří Lucemburský, nemanželský syn markraběte Prokopa, který zemřel jako benediktinský mnich v klášteře v Monte Cassinu".(My search was picking up text from a cs.wiki mirror, whoops!) As for notability, I assumed being the last living member of the very notable House of Luxembourg was worthy of inclusion. Mbdfar ( talk)- Best I can find digitized is another thesis that states George was a bastard of Prokop who became a monk and died in Augsburg in 1457, citing Lucemburkové: česká koruna uprostřed Evropy by Šmahel and Bobková (2012) for the claim. Unfortunately, I do not have direct access to either Lucemburkové or Moravský markrabě Jošt mentioned above. Anyway, I'm sure the only son of the Margrave of Moravia was notable to contemporaries, but it seems few sources mentioning him have been digitized. Mbdfar ( talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prokop of Moravia where all the content in this stub already exists. Mccapra ( talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Prokop of Moravia. Srnec ( talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Prokop of Moravia. This article contains a little on this subject's career, which would be worth adding to that article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment whoa whoa whoa a master's thesis isn't a reliable source? Then why do we have
Template:Cite thesis? Don't professors usually engage pretty heavily with theses submitted with their names referenced as "advisor," which is kinda like a peer review except it's a boss review? I'm so confused.
jengod (
talk)
23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, third bullet point, especially the last sentence. Fram ( talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment 2 I guess merge is fine but isn't being an
endling of a family they named a whole country after kinda inherently notable?
jengod (
talk)
23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERITED, there are very few things which are considered inherently notable, and happening to be (perhaps, unverified) the last member of a family which once gave its name to a country (but personally having nothing to do with that) is not sufficient, no. Fram ( talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment 3 I'm also concerned we're exhibiting bias against non-English-lang sources here. Here some articles we have about noble-born monks or nuns who were not otherwise particularly famed for their accomplishments etc:
Paweł Dembski,
Andrzej Spot,
Catherine of Portugal (nun),
Joan of Navarre (nun),
Princess Charlotte of Monaco (1719–1790),
Ferenc Farkas (Jesuit priest),
Jīva (nun),
Louise of Savoy (nun),
Bridget of York,
Mary of Woodstock,
Princess Seishi, etc.
jengod (
talk)
00:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- No such bias on my part, I use such sources all the time. But no good sources have been presented here, English or not. And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, frustrating as it may be. Other articles may be worse (or not, I haven't checked) and be left alone, and this one get's AfD'ed. That's the luck of the draw, we try to enforce our policies and guidelines somewhat consistently but especially among older articles there is still a lot of work to do.
Fram (
talk)
08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK well you do you. jengod ( talk) 15:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- No such bias on my part, I use such sources all the time. But no good sources have been presented here, English or not. And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, frustrating as it may be. Other articles may be worse (or not, I haven't checked) and be left alone, and this one get's AfD'ed. That's the luck of the draw, we try to enforce our policies and guidelines somewhat consistently but especially among older articles there is still a lot of work to do.
Fram (
talk)
08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.