Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Kreuger

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. — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:27, 27 August 2006}

Angelica Kreuger[edit]

Article was prod'd with the rationale "As with many minor royal figures, the subject does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO standards and avoids WP:CSD A7 {{db-bio}} if (and only if) being 88th in line to the UK throne is a claim of notability. No hits on Google News and no ghits for "Angelica Krueger" + site:bbc.co.uk. Unless the standards for inclusion differ radically, this person should not have an article on Wikipedia as no facts beyond her mere existence and parentage can be verified." Prod tag removed without explanation. It is perfectly possible that there are reliable sources available offline which make the case for including the subject. It has not escaped my attention that there are many editors who believe that the faintest hint of royalty makes a subject worthy of a bio on Wikipedia, but that's not what WP:BIO says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 88th in line?! She's not going to come to power unless there's a massive natural disaster of some kind. Her only newsworthy feat was to be born into a royal family. Srose (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm having trouble verifying this directly, but I believe she may be 5th in line to the Romanian throne (given that her mother is 3rd, and 86th to Britain, she has an older brother (87th to Britain, I think 4th to Romania) and then she's next (88th to Britain, 5th to Romania). WilyD 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, so my point is, does anyone speak Romanian? WilyD 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Enough to tell you that the relevant Google search would be principesa-angelica +site:ro, the results of which aren't very promising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I did wonder about that, but then I said to myself Romania is not a monarchy, and if it ever were to become one, who can say what the law of succession might be. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a Romanian Monarchy with a definite line of succession - this is not a WP:NOT issue. The monarchy has been in exile since the communists took over Romania. The only substantive issue here is the line of succession (which is known, just not to us) WilyD 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this page, the succession is (or, more accurately was at the time Romania was still a monarchy) only open to males, in the male line. And of course, Romania is a republic, so being in line for the throne isn't notable as it is unlikely to be inherited by anyone. And being 88th in line to the UK throne is highly non-notable. Aristocruft. Lurker ^oi! 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - well, this is a pretty good point. But I did find there's still a "monarchy in exile" for Romania, so we ought to afford some standard of notability to the position. Still, if the succession is not for ladies, then there's not much here. As far as I can tell, 88th is too far down the British line to get auto-notability - which cuts off at 39th. WilyD 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The sources I'm looking at say that only Romanian males are entitled to the throne. Of course, I'm not looking at any Romanian-language sites (I can't speak a word of it and don't trust online translating services, i.e. babelfish), and some of these are off webservers like geocities... Srose (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - okay, so if we can find a more authoritative source that women can inherit the throne, I'm pretty sure she's a keep - if not, I'm pretty sure she's a delete (or merge somewhere?). Since all our (not that reliable) sources say she's not in line for the Romanian throne, I guess it's a provisional delete, unless we find a more authoritative source on the Romanian Monarchy that says she can get the crown. WilyD 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although the Romanian throne was, per the Romanian monarchical constitution, only open to males, and thus King Michael's heir under the official law would be the Prince of Hohenzollern or some close relative of the Prince of Hohenzollern, King Michael has declared his eldest daughter Margarita (the subject of this article's aunt) to be his heir. I'm not sure if he's officially altered the order of succession further than this, and of course it's dubious whether he has the right to declare his daughter to be the heir. It seems likely, though, that at least some (if not most) Romanian monarchists will recognize Margarita as head of house when the King dies. john k 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - John, can you get a source for this? I'm fairly sure she's a keeper if she is (as she would be then) fifth in line to the Romanian Throne. WilyD 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as an encylopedia of British royalty wikipedia has space for more than 100 entries. Kappa 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question It also has space for more than 1,000,000 entries. Let's try and agree a guideline here - will you vote delete on number 1,000,001? This is a genuine, not a rhetorical question! Dlyons493 Talk

I was thinking of 100 as a reasonable limit for comprehensive coverage. Kappa 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was mistakenly reading your 100 as as a lower bound rather than an approximate limit and was trying to find some upper bound to at least give a range for discussion. Probably most editors then would agree with a range of [10, 100] for discussion purposes (where no other notability is claimed for the person). Dlyons493 Talk 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure. She's a granddaughter of the last king of Romania, which surely gives her a slight amount of notability. Whether it's sufficient for an entire article about her, I don't really know. john k 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say not (though the authors of the notability essay on royalty say that the grandchild of a former monarch is notable, regardless of schievement and media coverage (or lack of). I don't buy it- I really don't see the grandchild of a deposed king being intrinsically notable Lurker ^oi! 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'm inclined to agree here. Her position may make her notable (Either in the British Succession or the Romanian one), but her parentage does not. I'm not convinced that her position in line to the British Throne will get her past WP:BIO, I am convinced that if we can verify she's fifth in line to the Romanian Throne, exile or not, she then passes WP:BIO nicely. WilyD 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment
      1. The British Constitution does not distinguish between persons who are the first or 900th in the Line of succession to the British Throne: if called to the throne, whether by the death of one or 899 persons, whether titled or not, rich or poor, the heir automatically and inescapably becomes Monarch. That is one of several laws that apply to and render notable those in the British succession: one may not unilaterally decline the honor without passage of a specific Parliamentary law excusing one from the duty of reigning. Other laws applicable to some in the line of succession restrict who, how old, and where these persons are allowed to marry (and ignoring the law doesn't just void one's place in line -- rather, it voids the marriage!) When Princess Caroline of Monaco married Prince Ernst August of Hanover in 1999, both of them required the permission of two of the modern world's historical "Great Powers": France had to signal its official acquiescence to her marriage, and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom had to issue an Order-in-Council authorizing him to marry her. She was second in the line of succession to Monaco's throne, and he was about 360th in line to the UK's. Yet the moment they were married the groom permanently dropped out of the UK's succession order because his bride is a Roman Catholic. But their six year-old daughter is in line to succeed to the crowns of both Monaco and the UK, and is subject to both realms' laws governing royalty -- would that make her notable? Only those of the blood royal are subject to these kinds of obscure but fascinating and very real restrictions -- and how near or distant they are to the throne is immaterial.
      2. No, Angelica isn't anywhere in the line of succession to the defunct Romanian crown, but is that the criterion? Suppose Prince William of Wales marries a Roman Catholic this year and has a daughter by this time next year: she will not be in the UK's line of succession. But will she be notable? Absolutely. Not because of her succession rights, but because of her kinship to the British royal family.
      3. Notability is not the same as distinction: One distinguishes oneself, but notability is something that is attributed to one by others. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York get somewhat more media coverage than Peter and Zara Phillips, but the difference is not huge: Coverage of their lives does not derive from royal titles or succession rights, but from the fact that all four are grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II -- two in the male, and two in the female line. Ergo, virtually any relative of a reigning monarch is inherently notable, because many people are curious about the lives and lifestyles of that rare and endangered species: royalty.
      4. How notable deposed monarchs' families are will depend greatly on the time elapsed since deposition. King Michael of Romania's grandchildren draw little media coverage because he lost his throne half a century ago. Much more interest is shown in the grandchildren of King Constantine II of the Hellenes because he only lost his throne in the 1970s. More interest is also shown in the grandchildren of ex-King Simeon of Bulgaria because, although he lost his throne before King Michael, he returned to Bulgaria in the 21st century as President. That brings up another relevant criterion: historically, exiled monarchs or their issue often return to national sovereignty or influence and, history noting that pattern, an encyclopedia should not be as short-memoried as a newspaper. I'd suggest that all children, all dynastic descendants and/or the heir of living ex-monarchs be deemed notable. Angelica Kreuger, as it happens, doesn't qualify because she is not a dynastic grand-daughter of a living ex-king -- daughters of daughters did not belong to Romania's royal family when enthroned, so they need not be considered royal on WP. Lethiere 04:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have been using [1] as a guideline for whether I argue to keep or delete people in line for the British Throne during the rampant nominations going on. I agree with the position that merely being related to someone famous confers no status, but disagree with the position merely being in line for a crown confers no status. Being in line for a crown is a position, but some disingenious person will ask "Well, I'm like 33 millionth in the line of ascention, why don't I get an article? Ha, I pwnd you." - and I have said that anyone who's verifiable may be worthy of an article, and I would likely opt for inclusion. But if she's just related to someone notable - ugh, no thanks. WilyD 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - She is most certainly not fifth in line to the Romanian throne under the old monarchical constitution. She is not in line for the throne at all. Her grandfather may have "amended" the laws of succession to declare her in line for the pretendership, but I'm not sure - somebody would have to look this up. Of course the old king has no authority to do under the old monarchical constitution, but the old monarchical constitution is a dead letter anyway - and if, by some fluke, the Romanian monarchy got restored (it is actually quite possible it might have been restored shortly after the fall of communism, if things had gone differently), it is unlikely that the old constitution would be restored, so I'm not sure how to consider this. Her mother is, however, a princess. john k 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?). Perhaps some people "voted" based on her position in the British line of succession, which isn't really important compared to her being the granddaughter of Mihai I. Ardric47 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm pretty sure most of us would vote keep if she was fifth in line to the Romanian throne, but merely "child of famous person X" isn't enough, she needs some criterion of her own (like holding a position in line to the throne), since she doesn't, she doesn't make the cut. If it turns out she is (I'm not sure this is totally clear), then she stays. WilyD 04:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ardric47- I don't think being the verifiable grandchild of a deposed king is enough to confer notability. In fact, I would only regard the child of a deposed monarch as notable if they were a prince/princess at the time of their parents' deposition/abdication. I would change my vote only if it was shown there was a realistic chance of this royal house regaining the throne. Then someone in succession would be notable, as someone with a real chance of becoming a future monarch Lurker ^oi! 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether or not she's Google-able, her royal status automatically gives her notability. I would also support a Merge to the mother's article, Princess Irina of Romania. --Elonka 04:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremley non-notable. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless she is actually a royal herself (i.e. a princess), I don't think she should have a page. John Smith's 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this apply to Zara Phillips and Lord Linley, as well? john k 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zara is notable via WP:BIO, Mr. Lindley doesnt look notable at all. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we adopt the exceedingly narrow proposals for notability, Lindley would qualify at birth by being 5th in line - can people genuinely become "unencyclopaedic" - this seems like a fairly strange claim, if we're trying to being an encyclopaedia for the ages, rather than just a news source. WilyD 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Linley is frequently discussed in the British press, as far as I can gather. A google news search turns up this from The Times, from a couple of weeks ago. One would imagine that a Lexis-Nexis search would probably turn up considerable press coverage of Linley. I think if you look into it you'll discover that even more distant people get a fair amount of coverage in the British press - there was press coverage when Lady Helen Taylor, the Duke of Kent's daughter, had her children, for instance, and coverage (and criticism, of course) of Marina Ogilvy, Princess Alexandra's daughter, when she was on public assistance. Even people only distantly connected to the royal family get fairly significant coverage in the British press. john k 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, non-royal private individual who's mother is by chance a Romanian princess. Charles 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to have to go with deleting, I think, after some thought. Her mother is probably notable, but she is not. john k 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her trifle info will find its home at her mother's article, if worth preserving here. As individual, Angelica is not notable enough. Suedois 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself virtually proves her non-notability (i.e. nothing more than the barest genealogical information). I'm about as "pro-royal" as you can get, but that doesn't mean I think there should be an article on every relative of a royal. Noel S McFerran 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NN. Dionyseus 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Daniel.Bryant 13:29, 26 August 2006 (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.