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. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Huenergardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Some sort of family claiming to be a noble house. It doesn't appear to have held any nobiliary title or land ever. I couldn't find any source, no history books, nothing. Prod was removed by the creator. Related to an apparently non-notable political party, with non-notable not-credible-at-all pretensions to speak in the name of the inhabitants of a disappeared Sovietic Republic, see old version of "Volgaland".

The removed prod said it very clearly: "Article lacks any merit. Searches for verifiable references or reliable sources [1], [2], [3] find nothing but facebook and similar pages or WP mirrors" Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I placed the original PROD that was declined by the article's creator. They were then asked for references and given time to provide them, but none has been forthcoming. As stated, there is no significant coverage or reliable sourcing for this article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Something invented at the local Wolgadeutschenverein one night is generally not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Admittedly, it does appear to be really invented, as opposed to a hoax for Wikipedia purposes. (A chicken farm? C'mon.) Choess (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it may or may not be a hoax but it definitely fails the policy of verifiability. - Whpq (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the original author, who has written all of the current content, has blanked the page twice. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the author blanks the page, then it should not be restored, but simply marked for a G7 speedy deletion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• hum, this AFD has already been opened three days, should we leave it open two days more until the five days limit, or should an admin close it as WP:SNOW + WP:CSD#G7? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't bother an admin at this point. (The admin who reverted the blanking might have looked at the article history and not realized the creator was the sole contributor). At any rate, there is nothing critical here -- I see you have already done a nice job of rooting out this info from other articles. Nice job with that. This Afd will be closed in due course and that is fine with me. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:03, 24 February 2009 (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.