Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine of Habsburg

Catherine of Habsburg

Catherine of Habsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Already agreed to on the talk page. The subject is entirely non-notable, which is why the article deals more with her husband's second wife and children of the second wife, her siblings, brother-in-law, and arbitrarily selected nephew and nieces than with the subject herself. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. We usually deem children of monarchs to be notable, as does history. I see no reason for an exception to be made here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • History obviously does not deem this woman to be notable, as no historian says anything about her. She apparently had no political influence and left no legacy. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, so we shouldn't "deem children of monarchs to be notable" unless they actually are notable. As far as I know, that is not what we do anyway. Is her father's title your only argument? Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Many children of monarchs about whom we have articles are notable only for being the children of monarchs, so yes, this is what we do. For crying out loud, we have articles on relatives of US presidents to the nth degree, who are only notable for their relationship to someone important but which will never be deleted in a million years, so why not children of European monarchs? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • What a classic example of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Who are these "many children of monarchs" ignored by historians but written about on Wikipedia? Please give me some examples; I'd love to see them join this article. Anyway, we are discussing (if there is anything here to be discussed) the notability of this person.
      • Finally, is this person encyclopedically notable because there exists an unspecified Wikipedia article about a completely unrelated person? Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • What it is to my mind is not a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but a classic example of WP:COMMONSENSE! I simply do not believe that any child (or spouse) of a significant ruler is non-notable. But we're clearly not going to agree on this one. Mentioning the relatives of US presidents was to point out that because these are more recent relatives of people significant to a lot of editors on English Wikipedia they are deemed to be notable, whereas closer relatives of more distant rulers not so significant to that demographic are not. I consider that to be a perfect example of WP:BIAS. Is this woman really less important than a random ordinary bloke who happened to be Barack Obama's great-uncle?! Or does she just come from a time longer ago and a country further away from most Wikipedia editors' interests? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
          • This woman comes from a country very close to my interests, so to speak; I've created and expanded numerous articles about members of her family, and brought two such articles to GA status. Yet I cannot pretend that she is notable when basically nothing has ever been written about her. Her youngest sibling, who died within hours of birth, is also notable by your standards, never mind the fact that nothing can be said about him other than who his parents and siblings were (and that is exactly the only thing that can be said about this woman). Surtsicna (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Hardly! Someone who died as a young child is not the same as someone who grew to adulthood (and then married a powerful ruler in his own right). Although I can see why you may have (wilfully, perhaps) misinterpreted what I said to think this. Maybe I should have dotted the i's and crossed the t's to avoid a pedantic response. Sorry about that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
              • No. What you should have done was name a few historians who pay more attention to this person than to her infant sibling. I am beginning to suspect that that will never happen. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
                • Please don't try to tell an experienced editor what he "should have done". It's patronising. I have given my opinion. That is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
                  • An experienced editor cites sources rather than give personal opinions, and thus needs not be told what to do in a deletion discussion. An opinion is certainly not sufficient to prove notability. Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete by redirect to husband. All the genealogical info can very well go in his article. Children of royalty are always notable for mention, I think, but unless such a child has some personal notability of hiers own other than that, it is not appropriate to have an individual article about hierm. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect- This is one of the cases where we certainly can have an article, simply following our usual outcomes for children of monarchs. However, considering that by all accounts she is not notable in her own right, and that all information would logically fit in her husband's article, I can't see how it is more useful for the reader for this article to be independent. --Yaksar (let's chat) 03:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to husband's article. I see no reason in having an article solely for the purpose of having an article when there is so little material to put in it and that material can be covered just as well elsewhere. DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)