Deletion of Hermann Leiningen (2nd nomination)

Comment: notability is not inherited. Not enough in-depth coverage about him to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails : There's nothing in the article that is not of a geneological or similar nature. Also no significant coverage in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGENEALOGY)

Comment: I disagree that  is applicable here since nobility inherently derives notability from inheritance. The question is rather whether there are enough RS to cover this subject. The question is rather whether  is fulfilled here, the National Post piece seems be the piece with most in-depth coverage of the subject itself. Passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: I don't see |''significant'' coverage. He works at a bank; so did I for several years, which does not make ne notable. Is he a VP or COO? I am know (or notorious) for my fairly lax standards at
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per  from reputable sources such as ''The National Post
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per Bearcat; in particular agreement with this part of his argument {{tq|the ''Canadian Jewish News'' hits aren't "covering" him in the context of doing anything noteworthy, either}}, to which I would add: the piece is obviously about the story of saving the Jews, and the information on the subject is a pretext to create a reason to retell the actual story, i.e. trivia to catch your attention. The https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hermann-leiningen-profile-canadian-with-royal-blood The Canadian who would be king article on the other hand is about daily life with the historical tidbits acting as trivia. There is something trivially interesting and eye-catching in all of this, but there is a serious reason not to maintain the article which is . Plus all the other more prosaic arguments consistently put forward by other delete proponents (such as  and ), and not refuted. For example I find the counter of {{tq|nobility inherently derives notability from inheritance}} to be an explicit negation of an obvious result of adding NOTGENEALOGY and NOTINHERITED together, and therefore completely invalid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGENEALOGY||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: There’s enough coverage to pass . Generally being a member of the nobility, even minor nobility,  makes you notable by birth as evidenced by the sources. Nobody is claiming his work as a banker is significant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)