The result was keep. While it appears there need to be some more substantial reliable sources added to the article to support the notability of the article subject, the ones which are presented—while individually not enough to support notability—are enough to meet the basic requirements of notability. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Blessed though the cheesemakers undoubtably are, I cannot see any reason (apart from having a big impressive name and a coat of arms) why this guy is notable. Don't be fooled by the word "ambassador" - he's not an international politician, just belongs to a few religious clubs. I don't think that the fag-ends of European aristocracy or mates of Pope John Paul II the sequel are automatically notable in Wikipedia terms. If I'm wrong about any of this, do let me know. pablo 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
"Windisch-Graetz" site:.va
– gets me only three hits. Even taken together, they fail to establish any notability:
Comment It seemed worth following up the Google search links provided above:
No doubt by searching harder (replacing ‘of’ by ‘zu’ or ‘di’, for instance) one could come up with more stuff. But when I spent the best part of an evening doing that a while back, I really came up with nothing but slightly tantalizing bits and pieces: something on a herd of water buffalo which he owns; the fact that he was off to court to defend a civil case over a large inheritance (a WP:RS, but the Italian newspaper wasn’t interested enough to later report the outcome of the case); a large interest he once held in a bank; a large company he set up, but of which I could find no other coverage; a sexual smear from a malicious and thoroughly unreliable source. That’s all I recall that is not already in the article: bits and pieces, but no sustained coverage. I’m still undecided on this one—though leaning towards deletion unless someone can come up with the sort of sustained coverage in reliable sources which would clearly establish his notabilty. I don’t think we have that in the current article. Ian Spackman ( talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. While it appears there need to be some more substantial reliable sources added to the article to support the notability of the article subject, the ones which are presented—while individually not enough to support notability—are enough to meet the basic requirements of notability. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Blessed though the cheesemakers undoubtably are, I cannot see any reason (apart from having a big impressive name and a coat of arms) why this guy is notable. Don't be fooled by the word "ambassador" - he's not an international politician, just belongs to a few religious clubs. I don't think that the fag-ends of European aristocracy or mates of Pope John Paul II the sequel are automatically notable in Wikipedia terms. If I'm wrong about any of this, do let me know. pablo 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
"Windisch-Graetz" site:.va
– gets me only three hits. Even taken together, they fail to establish any notability:
Comment It seemed worth following up the Google search links provided above:
No doubt by searching harder (replacing ‘of’ by ‘zu’ or ‘di’, for instance) one could come up with more stuff. But when I spent the best part of an evening doing that a while back, I really came up with nothing but slightly tantalizing bits and pieces: something on a herd of water buffalo which he owns; the fact that he was off to court to defend a civil case over a large inheritance (a WP:RS, but the Italian newspaper wasn’t interested enough to later report the outcome of the case); a large interest he once held in a bank; a large company he set up, but of which I could find no other coverage; a sexual smear from a malicious and thoroughly unreliable source. That’s all I recall that is not already in the article: bits and pieces, but no sustained coverage. I’m still undecided on this one—though leaning towards deletion unless someone can come up with the sort of sustained coverage in reliable sources which would clearly establish his notabilty. I don’t think we have that in the current article. Ian Spackman ( talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply