Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of consorts of Paris

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. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of consorts of Paris

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

Paris has not ever been the sort of entity which has "consorts". The Merovingian "kings of Paris" are called such out of convenience. They called themselves kings of the Franks, but since the Franks had several kings at one time, ruling from different centres over different territories, it is convenient to label those who made their main seat Paris the "kings of Paris". That's all. It is misleading to go from this to "queen consorts of Paris". The rulers of Paris under the Carolingians were styled "counts" often, but they did not have consorts in this regard. Then the list jumps from 1007 to 1864! Srnec (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, so does the list of Count of Paris! If you know your history the title was revived in the 1864 for Prince Louis-Philippe Albert of France after over 800 years of disuse! And what is the wife of a count? A countess! People will regard these ladies as countess no matter if they used the title in their lifetime or not. Same with Queens of Paris, obviously they never used the title (that can be added as a sidenote), but it would be of "convenience" for them to be called that since their husbands' ruled from the city of Paris, and there is still their counter-parts in Soissons, Reims, and Orleans.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" The list makes an interesting read, and would be unreadable if merged with other articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a second there, I thought the article was going to be about Paris Hilton's love life. Googlemeister (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The titles comes Parisiensis and comte de Paris have less in common than at first appearance. They do not designate the same office or rank. And do you really believe that the fact that few of the women in the list ever held the title "Queen of Paris" or "Countess of Paris" is an irrelevance that can be relegated to a sidenote? Seems highly misleading to me... Srnec (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we probably should be able to handle this with a title change-- "rulers of the region including Paris, perhaps?. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But to my knowledge none of these women ever ruled Paris. The list is a violation of WP:SYNTH if you ask me. There are no "countesses of Paris" in the eighth and ninth centuries, and the titles comes Parisiensis (7th-11th centuries) and comte de Paris (19th century) bear only an etymological relationship. Srnec (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. I'm no historian, but when a page whose content is contested is sourced only to a self-published website, which is no WP:RS, it has to go. Sandstein 20:33, 6 January 2010 (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.