Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza

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. ✗plicit 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza

[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)

Unsourced biography of a non-notable living person. DrKay (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete We have consistently deleted articles on pretender nobility when they are not notable in their own rights. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one-sentence article is completely unsourced, and a high percentage of it is devoted to reciting the subject's numerous middle names. The fact that we don't have articles about either of her parents makes this article an orphan (in Wikipedia terms). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED.Agricolae (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was born about 100 years after the house was deposed from power. This is a very extreme case of deposed monarchycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator has been blocked for block evasion. Probably could be speedied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my usual standards for nobility. She's not notorious. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In one single day DrKay removed three-quarters of the content of the page, then renamed the page in such a way that it is not possible to see the removed content, and then nominated the page for deletion. That seems entirely unfair to me. Could we see the original page and make a judgement based on that? Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not permit users to copy from elsewhere without attribution. This is directly contrary to the copyright policy, as was fully explained.[1] The claim that the content was deleted before the page move is entirely false. If you wish to see the original content, you may do so by visiting the website owned and controlled by the sock master who created the page. Naturally, that website is entirely unsourced and only consists of his own delusional fantasies. DrKay (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the original content came from this page on Royalpedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2022 (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.