Deletion of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (1944–1977)

Comment: I delayed weighing in on this a long time because I figured ''surely'' there exist a couple of articles that someone would turn up that cover this guy in enough depth to pass GNG, as suggested by Devonian Wombat.  But after more than a week, the extremely poor quality of the other Keep opinions has convinced me that that must be wrong, and that this article should be deleted.  Collectively, those six keep votes offer nothing.  Yes, he is a member of a family that once included monarchs of a kingdom.  But that kingdom didn't exist when he was born, and the nations that replaced it did not preserve their aristocratic orders, so all this banging on about how important the House of Hohenzollern is is completely irrelevant to the notability of this person, as it bears no relationship to any policy, guideline, or other widely shared consensus.  The 151 articles mentioned by ClearBreeze (since indef'd, and deservedly so) don't appear to actually exist (note that this guy has the same name as his father, who certainly was notable).  The actual sources on the article are complete garbage, and the vast majority of the article itself is monarchist fancruft that violates .  I looked at the German Wikipedia article, and the same appears to be true there; at least, I don't believe that any of the sources on that article simultaneously (1) are reliable and (2) include anything more substantive than passing mention of the subject.  (I did this with Google Translate, possibly I have made an error or oversight, in which case I very much welcome polite correction.)  Finally, I want to note that ''if the article is kept'' then the only reasonable course of action with respect to  is to strip away the utterly pointless trivia of which non-aristocrat begat which other non-aristocrat, leaving a stub about someone who was the child of someone notable, apparently got married, and then sadly died at a very young age; there is only one paragraph of encyclopedic material in the sources I've seen
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGENEALOGY||WP:NOTGENEALOGY)

Comment: fails , non-notable life
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: there shouldn't be any presumption of notability for members of ex-royal families. For members of actual royal families there is reason to believe coverage will exist, however former royals have far less reason to attract coverage. I don't see anything in the article or the above suggesting that the subject passes , in particular monarchist blogs aren't usable as sources. I'm happy with a redirect/merge to an article on the family
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Royalty are an acknowledged exception to . {{tq|There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub.}} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Son of the pretender to the German throne, great-grandson of the last Kaiser and father of the current head of the royal house. Clearly notable. Like it or not, senior members of royal families ''are'' notable. This has nothing to do with  and everything to do with common sense
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: per  and . The long-standing consensus has been to keep the heirs and pretenders to major thrones. This has been hashed out many times at AfD, and I don't see that changing.  allows such articles. In any case, the sources in the article show significant coverage. |Unreliable sources can be taken out in ordinary editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NBIO||WP:RS)