Cornelius III: Lefcentreright Discuss 20:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions .  Lefcentreright Discuss 20:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : there's already a merge proposal.  Clyde [trout needed] 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 21:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The state he rules, Sovereign State of Good Hope , is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Good Hope .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , the 'state' article should be deleted, but the sources here feel like they indicate specific and sustained coverage.  If anyone has full access to the Brill chapter that would be helpful.  The article content such as it is would need a NPOV rewrite though.  CMD ( talk ) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom— blindlynx 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I pointed out, Sovereign State of Good Hope ( AfD discussion ) is not merely unverifiable, but verifiably false and does not belong in any form in Wikipedia for being outright untrue.   As such, it is not an appropriate merger target in any way.   None of its content nor edit history belongs here.   The same holds true here.   The only apparently independent source that supports this turns out to be authored by the article subject, as can be seen from both its byline and the contributor information for the photographs, and even has a disclaimer at the bottom that such content is the author's own and not that of South Africa Today .   This is some shameful Wikipedia editing.   The source provided in the very first revision even stated outright that this was one person declaring xyrself to be a king, and not being recognized as such by anyone else.   Yet the article as written claimed the contrary, supposedly supported by that source.   This blatant misrepresentation of sources is highly inappropriate, and the use of autobiographical sources from the only person making the claims is as wrongheaded as it has always been.  Uncle G ( talk ) 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : If there was more coverage, we could have a case for an interesting pseudo-king.  This is just about one article, he went and told the person in charge they were evicted.  Odd mix of PROMO or one event notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Re CMD 's question: the Brill book seems to be based on this dissertation . To be fair to our overlord Cornelius, it's not just one article: there is a little coverage of his 2018 eviction stunt – Citizen , Citizen , SABC – and then some of a 2019 court case – Argus , Dispatch , Sunday Times – and he's mentioned in the Cape Times in 2015 so may be known to Khoisan communities (I don't know). I could really go either way on whether these establish notability or whether they're just human-interest stories. But we can all agree he does not have a state, just a ragtag separatist movement, so if kept the article should be rewritten. Jlalbion ( talk ) 18:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-notable "ruler" of a non-notable fake kingdom. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 11:33, 31 October 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.

Discussion outcome: delete