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 no consensus‎. While certainly the count is heavily towards "keep", I am not finding a strong, unchallenged argument to do so. There is disagreement regarding the strength and depth of available coverage, therefore I find no consensus to this discussion. Before renomination, it would be recommended to look closely at each source listed to see if an encyclopedic-ally useful article can be built upon them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymus Schlick (edit | 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)

Notability. Czech WP, while slightly longer, cites one genealogy source and nothing else. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It'd be reasonable to redirect this to Thaler#Joachimsthaler since there is no useful information in the article itself. There is a very little about Hieronymus (presumably II) here:[1] but it's trivial stuff about minor local administration. Elemimele (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redirect per Elemimele. Sounds like this guy is just one from a rich family who did the same thing, which could be a better topic for an article (though isn't yet). Jdcooper (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Corresponded with Luther ([2]) and treated by Agricola ([3]). Expandable. Srnec (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't normally come back to deletion discussions, but accidentally did to this. I think it's going to be quite difficult to write a convincing article based on a passing reference (less than one sentence, mentioning that he and his brother received a letter from Luther and possibly reacted by issuing an opposition to Anabaptists), and a single mention of his name, identified as the brother of someone else, in an article about someone quite different (Georgius Agricola). Luther wrote to quite a lot of people. A five-volume set of his letters amounting to more than 2400 pages is described as "a selection of" his correspondence, so the letter is not a great surprise; was there any further correspondence between them? Did he influence Luther's views? He was a regional ruler; the big question is whether anyone has actually written a decent history of him, or at least included more than passing references to him in a history of something else? I'd love it if someone has. I did try to think of a way to add Smec's refs into the article, but it's quite hard to do it without it sounding like a bit of trivia. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Srnec. Appears to be reasonably notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- Unfortunately I do not know Czech, but the Czech WP article on him is slightly longer and it clearly considers him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you at least read an automatically translated version of it before you decide what it says? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn’t appear to consider him very notable, by the way. Just a more detailed genealogical/biographical sketch than ours, citing only one source (a genealogy site). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - an important personality of the Czech history, as suggests this source - publication of the National Museum of the Czech Republic. Contains a lot of other sources. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know Czech so I'm relying mostly on autotranslation and would appreciate correction, but does the word wikipedii translate as anything other than "Wikipedia?" If not, the information on Hieronymus Schlick here seems to be A) purely genealogical, B) a passing mention, and C) citied to Wikipedia. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Thaler#Joachimsthaler Delete. The sources Srnec provided seem reliable but have little more than a passing mention of Hieronymus. The source Vejvančický provided also is only a passing mention, and appears to cite Wikipedia. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to delete; the proposed redirect doesn't seem have any information on the individual in question at all. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The History of Money has 3 paragraphs on the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) The Encyclopedia of Money has 2 paragraphs. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Worth noting that most of the word count of those three paragraphs consists of narrative fluff. The facts in there could be summarized much more succinctly. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This historical figure carries significant importance in the context of the origin of the dollar and possesses a captivating narrative. Holding the prestigious title of count within an absolute monarchy, he can be acknowledged as a member of the royal court. Moreover, their story finds extensive documentation in various national historical papers and has been subject to scholarly discussions among historians. Given these factors, it becomes apparent that this individual holds a notable status and merits recognition for their contributions and profound impact on history. So look notable to me. Being a stub article is not a reason for deletion. 1.47.196.154 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please link to “various national historical papers”, then? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (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.