Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz

:{{la|Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz}})

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)

• Keep. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, according to an admittedly badly-sourced claim in the lede, is "widely considered a sovereign subject of international law." (Maybe the [http://www.un.int/orderofmalta/ next source] is a little better.) If that's the case, then his ambassadorship is a little more substantial than zero, even if he doesn't possess the international importance of someone like Ryan Crocker. And I don't know about calling Papal Gentlemen "mates of Pope John Paul II the sequel." If they're the modern-day Papal equivalent to the valet de chambre, this guy is one of Benedict's secretaries, even if that's also just ceremonial. This stuff doesn't confer indisputable notability, but these kinds of bits and pieces add up after awhile. CityOfSilver 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep He is one of the most senior laymen (i.e. not a priest) who works at the Vatican. He is the head of a princely house. But it seems that those are the very reasons some people want to delete the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:A google search for him on the Vatican domain – "Windisch-Graetz" site:.va – gets me only three hits. Even taken together, they fail to establish any notability:

:* [http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/13195.php?index=13195&po_date=12.04.2003&lang=en PROMULGAZIONE DI DECRETI DELLA CONGREGAZIONE DELLE CAUSE DEI SANTI , 12.04.2003]. ‘Erano inoltre presenti [also present were]: Loro Altezze Imperiali e Reali Arciduca Otto d’Asburgo-Lorena e l’Arciduchessa Regina, […], Principe Windisch Graetz, [long list continues].’

:* [http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/14161.php?index=14161&po_date=20.12.2003&lang=en PROMULGAZIONE DI DECRETI DELLA CONGREGAZIONE DELLE CAUSE DEI SANTI , 12.04.2003]. Again he appears in a long list of people in attendance, this time more impressively styled as His Serene Highness, and accompanied by Her Imperial and Royal Highness Princess Sophie Windisch-Graetz.

:* [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/149q01.pdf ‘Un pranzo per i poveri di Roma’], L’Osservatore Romano, 30 June–1 July, 2011, p. 9. A dinner held for poverty-stricken Roman people (four coach-loads of Italians, Poles, Romanians, Africans and Asians) in the gardens of San Giovanni in Laterano. A worthy event, but again he is simply one in a list of people present: ‘Ad accogliere gli ospiti il decano del Collegio Cardinalizio Angelo Sodano, il presidente del Circolo, il duca Leopoldo Torlonia, con la moglie Cintia, l’assistente ecclesiastico del sodalizio monsignor Franco Camaldo e il principe Windisch Graetz.’

: If he is indeed a senior figure at the Vatican, he seems a decidedly shadowy one. Of course he may do important work behind the scenes—I read ‘somewhere on the net’ that he was involved in negotiations between one of the pretenders to the Italian throne and both the Vatican and the Italian government, for instance—but we would need reliable sources to establish that. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to Windisch-Graetz. Whatever slim claim to notability may exist relates to being the head of the House of Windisch-Graetz.  Frank  |  talk  00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, but would accept Merge - Gut feeling. I have been watching and "contributing" to this article for a while now, although my contributions have usually been of the deletionist tendency in this instance. I have no particular qualms regarding royalty/pretenders/ancient lineages & titles etc but this has been one of several articles where a certain person, often using IP addresses, has attempted what appears to be COI promotion. There has been tendentiousness and blocks galore. Yes, the subject appears as a part of genealogical studies and, yes, he does have some honorific/ceremonial function at the Vatican which puts him in a position of a "passing mention" in news reports etc. And the news reports of the death of his son strike a emotional chord. But during the time of my involvement with the article I cannot recall any real substance. As things stand, there still remains nothing to indicate that he has any influence (can't think of the most appropriate word for this) beyond his ceremonial and hereditary rites of passage. Many of the hereditary peers of the British House of Lords managed more than he has done in terms of notability. Both of which apply to the family line rather than the individual. Are we really to become a genealogical website? Indeed, notability (on WP) is not inherited. If we are to become a genealogical site then let it at least be contained to one article unless there is real substance to a broader claim under WP:N. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, as described by Noel S McFerran. Furthermore, I want to add that he is a genuine ambassador of a sovereign entity, like a country. Many ambassadors of counties, but also supranational organizations like the Holy See (not the Vatican State!), EU, UN, even UNESCO, do also have a page at Wikipedia. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Do you have a reference which supports the claim that a lay religious order is a sovereign entity in this sense? pablo 09:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::: Circa 100 countries recognise the SMOM as sovereign, established diplomatic relations. However, some other countries do not recognize SMOM as sovereign entity, like Belgium and France.[http://www.orderofmalta.int/diplomatic-relations/862/sovereign-order-of-malta-bilateral-relations/?lang=en] Furthermore, it has a permanent observer status (grant A/RES/48/265) at the United Nations General Assembly, like the Holy See and the EU. See Observer status. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: So "yes and no" then. It's certainly a fascinating organisation. But M H of W-G does not inherit notability by belonging to it. pablo 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: Well, that's your POV opinion. Being merely a Knight of the SMOM is not why he has a Wikipedia site. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I know it isn't. The trouble is that I cannot see why he has a Wikipedia page. Little scraps of inherited notability gathered together from hither and yon do not add up to his own independent notability. What, may I ask, is the reason why he has a Wikipedia page? In your POV opinion? pablo 11:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::: This discussion is a waste of time and computer space. Please, read my comment above, there I already explained why. If you still not convinced, read the comment of Noel S McFerran, which is on itself already a conclusive argument.Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: This discussion has several more days to run, feel free to participate or not, as you choose. Either way, please read the comment of Sitush, above, which is perhaps more simply (and elegantly) phrased than mine. Perhaps that will help you. pablo 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Take a list at the diplomatic corp accredited to Spain [http://www.maec.es/es/EYC/Documents/2ALISTA.pdf]. The "Orden de Malta" appears on page 192 between Oman and Paises Bajos (Netherlands). In the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs list of embassies the "Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta" appears between Somalia and Spagna (Spain). The SMOM has diplomatic relations just like other countries. Bottom line: over 100 countries recognise it. Surely this answers the question, Do you have a reference which supports the claim that a lay religious order is a sovereign entity in this sense? Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Yup – the answer to the question is "yes and no". pablo 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::The Rugby Football Union recognise my rugby club,but it is not notable in the Wikipedia sense & so I cannot provide a link :( There are over 1,000 clubs recognised by the RFU in England; how many members are there of SMOM? In any event, the case being made by the Keepers here is that there is an accumulation of notability via various inherited positions etc. It is true that the guidelines allow for this but it has to be on a case-by-case basis, and in this case the accumulation looks very shaky because the sources appear to be few & in many cases of the SPS variety. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Are you really arguing that the diplomatic relations between Spain, Italy, and the SMOM are comparable to the recognition given by the Rugby Football Union to various rugby clubs? Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The references to him in: the modern "Gotha", the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, volume XV, 1997, p. 521; in Le Petit Gotha, 2002, p.204; in The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain, 2002, p.562; and in La Descendance de Marie-Therese de Habsburg, Reine de Hongrie et de Boheme, 1999, pp.32-33, 35 (the books which happen to be within my reach as I sit at my desk -- and not taking into account any coverage in periodicals) lead me to conclude that he is the subject of ongoing, sufficiently in-depth, independent, reliable coverage to justify the inclusion of an ever-improping article in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

::I do not have access to the sources that you cite but seem to recall that at least some of them are genealogies. So, are they "in-depth" or are they basically a listing? - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It seemed worth following up the Google search links provided above:

• Google Scholar comes up with nothing.
• Google Books comes up a snippet or two. ‘Now in her late forties, Denise Thyssen lives in Rome with Prince Mariano Hugo zu Windisch-Graetz, who is in his mid-thirties, and their liaison is not smiled upon by the prince's family’ (Vanity Fair, (1989); and reprinted in Dominick Dunne, The Mansions of Limbo (G.K. Hall, 1992): a ‘collection of his essays from "Vanity Fair," in which the best-selling author reveals the life and times of the beautiful—and not-so-beautiful—people’). The Bankers' Almanac, Volume 1, (Reed Information Services, 1993) lists him as a director of (presumably) a bank. The few other snippets are even less revealing. I suppose we could add the first to the article, but I don’t see how co-habiting with a red-link could boost his notability. (Who is/was Denise Thyssen?)
• Google News comes up with nothing.
• Google free images comes up with nothing.
• Google everything got 44 results, several of which (including Facebook) were Wikipedia mirrors or derivatives. None seemed to be WP:RS.

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)

: You don't say what you were searching. Try "hugo windisch". Items come up in Google Scholar, Google News, and Google Free Images (all of which you say have nothing). Lots of photos of him and his wife (even one with Berlusconi!), as well as one of Alex. When you search a real news database (like Factiva), i.e. not just free things, you get much more. 128.100.125.177 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:: I was following, as I said, the google links listed near the top of this page. I am sure, of course, that more pages can be found if one makes the effort: but really, if he were clearly notable, those should have come up with more. So, if you can find good stuff—sustained coverage in independent reliable sources—then do make your argument for retention here based on them. I’m certainly not anxious for the article to be deleted, just leaning towards deletion on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:: {{ec}}And do these results provide in-depth coverage of the subject from multiple reliable secondary sources? pablo 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Using "hugo windisch" gets nearly 7k of GHits. In the first seven pages of results there is not a single worthy mention. Blogs, ancestry sites, a solitary press release from the US Embassy (namecheck, with an archibishop & a US ambassador to Italy), mirrors of WP, trade directories, linkdin etc. I am not even sure that they all refer to him, rather than relatives or even other people entirely. GScholar gets 20 or so results, and none of them seem to be of any relevance at all. As with one or two others, I have spent months, on and off, trying to dig up stuff for this guy and still am getting nowhere useful. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable for position as head of a princely house and as an ambassador. Plenty of references supplied in article. - dwc lr (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Merge as above. I'm pretty dubious about the independence of some of the awards and sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep I did a fair bit of looking at, and some work on, the article a few months back and my experiences of doing so left me, among my milder views of its subject, with the impression that the SMOM (which is recognised by enough countries that I am prepared to regard it as a sovereign entity), when it appoints ambassadors, does not always see a connection between diplomacy and tact. However, on the matter at hand - my experience of looking for sources then was somewhat similar to that of Ian Spackman, though from memory I used a rather wider range of search terms than he says he did (this can be tricky, as his name seems to have a number of possible variants, across at least five languages). From what I saw, while any notability he has is clearly entirely an indirect result of his genealogical connections, I suspect that a sufficiently diligent editor could probably come up with just about enough to satisfy GNG - though (leaving aside the tragic death of his son) once one gets past his business affairs (which seem to have been significant, though perhaps not to the point of notability by themselves, twenty years back but are far less evident now) and some relatively routine references on his ambassadorial and Vatican-related activities, the most visible remaining possibilities seemed to be connected to a couple of high-society scandals. And then of course, for what they are worth, there are the genealogical connections, the SMOM ambassadorships (which to be honest don't look like full-time jobs), the Vatican post, the knighthood of the Golden Fleece - well, obviously some of my fellow editors would consider these enough by themselves... PWilkinson (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2011 (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.