- 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. Sandstein 11:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Johan of Limburg Hohenlimburg Broich, probst of Werden
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Johan of Limburg Hohenlimburg Broich, probst of Werden ( | 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)
Very unclear notability. This article seems to be based on research of primary sources, and a self-published book. I wasn't able to find better sources, but perhaps a different combination of search terms will give better results (I tried it with Hohenlimburg Broich probst Werden). Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I could find a few trivial mentions using either English Johan Limburg provost or the alternative German Johann Limburg Propst or Johannes Limburg Propst as search terms.
[1]
[2]. Overall, the article seems to be
original research, as the majority of sources are primary documents from the Middle Ages. Redirect to one of the many articles about his family, where a one-sentence mention would be appropriate. —
Kusma (
talk)
09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting is also ok, there is already a one sentence mention in Counts of Limburg Hohenlimburg and Broich, and given the lack of secondary sources, that's all that seems merited here. While this is all fascinating as family history, we have good reasons to publish no original research at all, and working directly from medieval documents is exactly that. — Kusma ( talk) 09:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
| Very long contribution by VanlmugH, collapsed for legibility |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Indeed: The bibliography is limited but can still be supplemented. More references to authentic sources (certificates, deeds) can also be added. Unfortunately, I made a mistake in reference (inline citation) [2]. The book EAN 9789490258184 (2018) is (possibly due to rectification) no longer available in bookshops. It is certain that the persons in question were neither day laborers nor bastards. The word "swindlers" did not belong to their vocabulary and therefore does not appear in their surviving sources. My proposal is:
VanlmugH ( talk) 22:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Deer Kusma
If there are too much references it can be removed easely. Adding references is a time consuming proces. The questions concerning this and other lemma's I recently made is what is too less and what is too much. I discoverd in several WIKIPEDIA Lemma's known wrong information due to outdated Literature and references to books with unreliable information. Fore example a few day's ago corrected f.i. "List of states in the Holy Roman Enpire"(L) Because I knew the original charters about that subject and the unreliable reference souces used.
DEFINITION WIKIPEDIA Says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
Example: Magna Carta. An authentic charter preserved in a state archive. Is the most close original material about an event. A account written by people who are directly involved. It is a prove of certain persons who have exist. The position (power) they had. The role they played. Witness of an event. Primary Sources:
Related to this Lemma. Fürstliches Archiv Rheda / Gelders Archief; Arnhem (NL) / Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf HSA / Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln: ( http://historischesarchivkoeln.de) / Nordrhein-westfälischen / Hauptstaatsarchivs; Düsseldorf / Rheinisches Archiv; Bonn / Staatsarchiv Münster / Münster Stadtarchiv Dortmund; Dortmund/ Stadtarchiv Duisburg; Duisburg / Stadtarchiv Essen; Essen / Stadtarchiv Hagen; Hagen / Stadtarchiv Mülheim; Mülheim an der Ruhr / Stadtarchive Bochum;Bochum
Transcriptions, Interpretations, evidence, facts published by well-know (mainly German) scientists (historians) in Charter- (Urkunde-)books available for reference in libraries of universities. And find books written by conservators of historical archives. Often available on the websites of universities and archives. Related to this Lemma
Texts, subtracted from Charter-, Acta- and Find books, collected from several archives. Published concentrated in (Regest)books concerning one subject (family). Related to this Lemma Urkundenbücher der Stadt Duisburg / / Regesten Digitales Archiv http://lehre.hki.uni-koeln.de / Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek http://archive.nrw.de / Regesten boeken HVL;DL01&DL02:RG isue date (present in the library of Dutch institutions)
PHOTOS OF CHARTERS: Related to Lemma:
SOURCES, REFERENCES AND INLINE CITATIONS:
Suggestions for removel of overdone references, are welcome VanlmugH ( talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
- Delete - WP:NOTABILITY; WP:NOR. What is in the article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and even were he notable, the overwhelming amount of WP:OR in the existing article makes it a candidate for WP:TNT. Agricolae ( talk) 01:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 22 March 2022 (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 delete. Sandstein 11:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Johan of Limburg Hohenlimburg Broich, probst of Werden
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Johan of Limburg Hohenlimburg Broich, probst of Werden ( | 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)
Very unclear notability. This article seems to be based on research of primary sources, and a self-published book. I wasn't able to find better sources, but perhaps a different combination of search terms will give better results (I tried it with Hohenlimburg Broich probst Werden). Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I could find a few trivial mentions using either English Johan Limburg provost or the alternative German Johann Limburg Propst or Johannes Limburg Propst as search terms.
[1]
[2]. Overall, the article seems to be
original research, as the majority of sources are primary documents from the Middle Ages. Redirect to one of the many articles about his family, where a one-sentence mention would be appropriate. —
Kusma (
talk)
09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting is also ok, there is already a one sentence mention in Counts of Limburg Hohenlimburg and Broich, and given the lack of secondary sources, that's all that seems merited here. While this is all fascinating as family history, we have good reasons to publish no original research at all, and working directly from medieval documents is exactly that. — Kusma ( talk) 09:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
| Very long contribution by VanlmugH, collapsed for legibility |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Indeed: The bibliography is limited but can still be supplemented. More references to authentic sources (certificates, deeds) can also be added. Unfortunately, I made a mistake in reference (inline citation) [2]. The book EAN 9789490258184 (2018) is (possibly due to rectification) no longer available in bookshops. It is certain that the persons in question were neither day laborers nor bastards. The word "swindlers" did not belong to their vocabulary and therefore does not appear in their surviving sources. My proposal is:
VanlmugH ( talk) 22:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Deer Kusma
If there are too much references it can be removed easely. Adding references is a time consuming proces. The questions concerning this and other lemma's I recently made is what is too less and what is too much. I discoverd in several WIKIPEDIA Lemma's known wrong information due to outdated Literature and references to books with unreliable information. Fore example a few day's ago corrected f.i. "List of states in the Holy Roman Enpire"(L) Because I knew the original charters about that subject and the unreliable reference souces used.
DEFINITION WIKIPEDIA Says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
Example: Magna Carta. An authentic charter preserved in a state archive. Is the most close original material about an event. A account written by people who are directly involved. It is a prove of certain persons who have exist. The position (power) they had. The role they played. Witness of an event. Primary Sources:
Related to this Lemma. Fürstliches Archiv Rheda / Gelders Archief; Arnhem (NL) / Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf HSA / Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln: ( http://historischesarchivkoeln.de) / Nordrhein-westfälischen / Hauptstaatsarchivs; Düsseldorf / Rheinisches Archiv; Bonn / Staatsarchiv Münster / Münster Stadtarchiv Dortmund; Dortmund/ Stadtarchiv Duisburg; Duisburg / Stadtarchiv Essen; Essen / Stadtarchiv Hagen; Hagen / Stadtarchiv Mülheim; Mülheim an der Ruhr / Stadtarchive Bochum;Bochum
Transcriptions, Interpretations, evidence, facts published by well-know (mainly German) scientists (historians) in Charter- (Urkunde-)books available for reference in libraries of universities. And find books written by conservators of historical archives. Often available on the websites of universities and archives. Related to this Lemma
Texts, subtracted from Charter-, Acta- and Find books, collected from several archives. Published concentrated in (Regest)books concerning one subject (family). Related to this Lemma Urkundenbücher der Stadt Duisburg / / Regesten Digitales Archiv http://lehre.hki.uni-koeln.de / Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek http://archive.nrw.de / Regesten boeken HVL;DL01&DL02:RG isue date (present in the library of Dutch institutions)
PHOTOS OF CHARTERS: Related to Lemma:
SOURCES, REFERENCES AND INLINE CITATIONS:
Suggestions for removel of overdone references, are welcome VanlmugH ( talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
- Delete - WP:NOTABILITY; WP:NOR. What is in the article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and even were he notable, the overwhelming amount of WP:OR in the existing article makes it a candidate for WP:TNT. Agricolae ( talk) 01:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 22 March 2022 (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.