Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Friederike of Hanover (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Friederike of Hanover

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject is not a public person. The sole reason we have this article is genealogy, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. She lives a private life in Canada, not as a "princess" but as someone of little interest to the media and the general public. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "deposed monarchy cruft". She is not even a proper princess, her claims to these titles are not recognised by either Britain or Germany, it could be a BLP violation to say that she claims them without proper sourcing. If the article is retained then we might need to re-write it to remove these titles. Loads of people might have been speculated about as a bride for Prince Charles, he did have several girlfriends in his younger days but not aware that she was one of them, not sure that they ever even met. PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking into this further, the only online source for her as a potential bride for Prince Charles is from the Ottowa Citizen, a brief article quoting the News of the World, a defunct British newspaper regarded as a deprecated source, see WP:RSP. PatGallacher (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The family has had zero power for over a century and a half.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can we just have an RfC already to formally censure using royalty genealogy books as GNG claims for modern people? Clearly they do not demonstrate notability by themselves, since if they did there wouldn't be so many pages sourced only to them. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would that help with dealing with all these articles? I think we would still have to go through them one by one. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We would, but at least it would make the process more straightforward and would possibly preempt creation of further such articles. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:22, 3 August 2020 (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.