Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia

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 all. If these people have received coverage in sufficient quantity and quality for WP:N purposes, this is not in evidence in their articles or in this discussion. No other arguments to keep that are based on pertinent policies or guidelines have been made. See also the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Pierre of Orléans, which mostly applies here as well. Sandstein 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia

These such articles are at best genealogical entries (link to an official policy) which do not make their subjects notable. All such articles should be deleted or merged to their relevant ancestors articles, if at all, rather than retaining stubs which present their birth dates and their non-notable issue. Princes and princesses may be notable but only if they are not obscure or have done notable things. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen for a similar situation where an article was composed only of biographical information for an otherwise non-notable individual. Charles 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Strong Keep (all) per my argument in this similar discussion. Two princesses and a prince who are in line to the British throne (even if they're far, far back) have undoubtedly received media coverage. Picking one at random, a Google News search for Felicitas returns a few hits, and these are only American papers, I'm sure she's received much more coverage in Germany. faithless (^speak) 06:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, one article saying she was married (my parents have one) and two or so saying that she is the daughter of her father (I appear in articles like that as well). Do I "deserve" an article? Those things DO NOT make her notable and the only notable information about her already appears on: a) the succession page and b) the genealogy of the Prussian Royal Family. Extending it further than that is superfluous and contains wholly non-notable material. Let me ask this question: Do you think that every single person in line of succession to the British throne ought to have an article saying such when (get this!) the article for the succession to the British throne already says that? Charles 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to a similar concern here, except now I'm regretting being so polite about it. We disagree; get over it. There's no reason to be a dick just because someone doesn't agree with you. I have explained the reasoning behind my argument, and have noted the specific part of wiki-policy to back up my argument. There's no reason for you to even respond, and your temper tantrum is entirely uncalled for. Remember, AfDs don't have to be unanimous; you can have dissenting opinions. These articles probably will be deleted, so what difference does it make is someone interprets policy differently than you interpret it? faithless (^speak) 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion. No need to uncivil about it. I can having a dissenting opinion, but I don't call anyone a "dick" (a word I would never use) nor would I flippantly point them to the essay on the matter. The policy is policy and it spells out clearly what Wikipedia is not and these articles have no distinction to separate them from that. A temper tantrum? You are posting with a lot of liberty. A lot of it. But that's alright for you to do that, I won't. If these articles will be deleted, as you say, it should be noted that it is because of Wikipedia policy and that every Wikipedia editor should be aware of it over his or her own individual opinions. Charles 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen. Charles 14:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (all) Alan Davidson 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (appears below)[reply]

In the spirit of discussion, please state your reasoning. Charles 02:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (all) I agree with the comments by Faithless above. Princes, Princesses, in line, media coverage are all points made. I have just read the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page and agree that these people fall within this (noting the inclusionary provisions not exclusionary). Alan Davidson 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted links to official policies and stated why these people are not notable. Which points supposedly make these people notable? I am truly inclined to believe that this is an example of WP:ILIKEIT given the history at Felicitas' page. I see no "media coverage" that makes these people notable for having an article. A wedding announcement, etc, does not cut it. Like I said, I have those in my family as well and I am not notable enough to have an article. I see nothing in the notability for people that supports the existence of these pages. Charles 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability here. Being descended from someone famous does not make one a notable person. NoSeptember 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DELETE or at the very least somehow merge. These people fail notability criteria. Charles 14:37, 31 October 2007 (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.