Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 20

20 September 2023

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Clearly a no consensus result but closure's decision is redirect, also WP:IDONTLIKE bullied by anti-monarchy gang, who trying to deleted many royalty articles since 2020. The princess was a daughter of a reigning monarch, and her life received extensive coverage from various sources, also notable enough for a biography to have be written about her "The Struggle for a Royal Child, Anna Monica Pia, Duchess of Saxony", ISBN:  9781332933518. For example AfD outcome see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane, Duchess of Württemberg. Unfair decision! Why not have an entry on Wikipedia because she was not a princess of a British monarch?. Thanks 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close reasoning: AfDs are closed based on sources, policy, and guidelines. The only way this is no-consensus is by counting votes and hoping NOTINHERITED is ignored. Keep voters had a lot of assertions, but no sources and this article does not meet notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  09:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Long time no see old friend, you r still shameful! Well, Subject of a book is Enough to pass WP:GNG. GNG rule is not created for a weapon. 82.209.191.153 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Please tone it down a bit, anon. Calling other editors "shameful", "disgusting" and "shameless members of a gang" isn't going to help your case here, nor is suggesting that there is an "anti-monarchy gang" conspiring to have articles deleted. Can you demonstrate here that "her life", and not just her parents' custody dispute, received "extensive coverage"? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse. You're just rehashing the keep arguments, which as Vanamonde93's closing statement (you forgot to discuss this with him first, by the way) already said, failed because assertions of importance and pleases of unfairness are very weak in the face of an actual policy- and source-based evaluation of notability. The anti-monarchy gang sounds like a blast, though – where do I sign up? – Joe (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Given the tone being employed here, I don't especially mind that this wasn't raised with me; I don't think that would have been terribly productive. I stand by my closure. Members of royal families who never ruled themselves are sometimes notable because of other activities, and sometimes not. The arguments that this particular individual was not were far stronger. I'm persuaded by the argument that coverage of a custody battle is not SIGCOV for the child subject of that battle, though it may be for the parents. And while I didn't downweight !votes based on conduct, tossing around personal attacks isn't helping your case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)