Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess of Vasa: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:14, 8 February 2023

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 merge to Władysław IV Vasa. Tone 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess of Vasa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 10-year-old who died centuries ago is so unnotable that her first name is unknown. The title of the article is also misleading; she was an illegitimate child, certainly not a princess (may she rest in peace) and she wasn't the only princess of the House of Vasa. The article consists of only one sentence and no other Wikipedia has an article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - dwc lr (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into her father's article. All nobility are presumed notable unless disproven. In fact, she was the subject of a court portrait by a notable Dutch painter. In this case, however, there is no evidence she was notable, nor is her name known. It contains useful information and a decent image, so I would merge instead of deleting. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that being completely unknown and nameless counts as unnotable. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete Agree with Surtsicna's points that being unknown and nameless generally means not notable, although the unknown soldier would be an exception, as would the unknown unknown. Also since there were several legitimate princesses of Vasa it is not reasonable to redirect this to another article. But I did add the picture to her mother's article Jadwiga Łuszkowska, and may improve that article - there are some sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly unsourcable article on a royal bastard (term used in historical, not derogatory sense), flunks WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with father. The only objective of this article appears to be to provide a home for the image, but it is also in an articel on her (presumed) mother. Generally children (even of kings) are NN during childhood, and I do not think she is any exception. The merge could be done by placing the mistress and here children at the end of the "marriages" section of the father. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the info on this child with the father. It is a sidebar to his life. --Stormbay (talk) 03:51, 7 September 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.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 **'''Comment''' I think that being completely unknown and nameless counts as unnotable. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 19:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 *'''<s>Merge</s>Delete''' Agree with [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]]'s points that being unknown and nameless generally means not notable, although the [[unknown soldier]] would be an exception, as would the [[unknown unknown]]. Also since there were several legitimate princesses of Vasa it is not reasonable to redirect this to another article. But I did add the picture to her mother's article [[Jadwiga Łuszkowska]], and may improve that article - there are some sources. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' Hopelessly unsourcable article on a royal bastard (term used in historical, not derogatory sense), flunks [[WP:BIO]]. [[User:Youngamerican| ''<font color="#CC5500">young</font>''<font color="#321414">american</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|wtf?]])</small> 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Hopelessly unsourcable article on a royal bastard (term used in historical, not derogatory sense), flunks [[WP:BIO]]. [[User:Youngamerican| ''<span style="color:#CC5500;">young</span>''<span style="color:#321414;">american</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|wtf?]])</small> 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' with father.  The only objective of this article appears to be to provide a home for the image, but it is also in an articel on her (presumed) mother.  Generally children (even of kings) are NN during childhood, and I do not think she is any exception.  The merge could be done by placing the mistress and here children at the end of the "marriages" section of the father.   [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)