Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line Löwenstein

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 redirect to Rosa Luxemburg. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line Löwenstein[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. I know that this is not an ironclad rule, but exceptions to it are, well, exceptions, and I see nothing in this case to suggest this is one. This was prodded twice, and redirected once (redirect was reverted). Time for the big guns of AfD to have a say here. PS. It is worth noting that the father Eliasz Luxemburg was redirected after an uncontested prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to her daughter. She's clearly not independently notable, based on what the article says today. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rosa Luxemburg. Yaron K. (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rosa Luxemburg. Notability is not inherited. Line is not independently notable. Both sources within current article are only passing mention of her within the wider context of talking about her daughter. KTC (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. I initially opposed redirecting because I think the subject is likely to meet WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in biographies of Luxemburg (especially given that such coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material"); however a renewed look over WP:NOTINHERITED shows it's more stringent than I'd thought, and requires not only the GNG standards but also that the subject "have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep some of this depends on judgement. I consider her sufficiently famous that her parents are important in their own right also, but others might judge differently. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't even see the point of a merge or a re-direct! Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only mentions to be found are in passing and exclusively in the context of her daughter. There's so little information available about this person that it'd be impossible to expand the article beyond a couple of sentences. Fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2012 (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.