Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Archduke Joseph Francis of Austria. The arguments against a standalone article are substantively stronger from a policy perspective. The "keep" !votes contain a lot of assertions (and in one case, ad hominem) that has no bearing on this article. At least one !voter did provide a substantial quantity of sources, but I find the argument persuasive that coverage of a custody battle does not confer notability on the child involved. As far as I can see, no other coverage has been provided that examines the subject of this article in her own right. The target of the redirect has not received much attention, and this discussion is no bar to revising it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another genealogical entry. All there is to say about her is to whom she was related. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, however. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - satisfies WP:ANYBIO as the entrance is in the German national biography as a notable royalty - [1] Raladic (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think merely having a listing in Deutsche Biographie is not satisfactory; there would have to be an accompanying biographical entry (example). This is because DB is not the "German National Biography", but rather a Wikidata-like collection. In the example I gave, the biography comes from the Neue Deutsche Biographie, while in this case the root source is ThePeerage, which is deprecated. Curbon7 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria for WP:ANYBIO requires an entry (listing) in the national biography, which it has, it doesn't require the entry to be detailed: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). which the Neue Deutsche Biographie is per it's own article summary NDB is a comprehensive reference work, similar to Dictionary of National Biography, Dictionary of American Biography, American National Biography, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Dictionary of Australian Biography, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Diccionario Biográfico Español, Dictionary of Irish Biography, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, and Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950 (ÖBL) (Austrian Biographical Dictionary 1815–1950)..
    And the source is not just ThePeerage, is it also recorded in the German National Library - [2] per [3]. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm the one misunderstanding, but nowhere is it stated that DB is Germany's standard national biographical dictionary. And my point on ThePeerage is because two of the three sources that are cited for the DB entry ([4][5]) both cite ThePeerage and the same genealogy handbook. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The German National Library link is a catalog entry that cites two wiki pages and a book that contains two sentences on her stating her birthdate and her marriages. She is mentioned in the DB, which contains 850k+ primary/tertiary database entries, not the NDB, and regardless the only info on her is birth/death dates and places and year of marriage to Josef Franz. That is not sufficient for a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable member of the Saxon royal house. She lived before the Internet era, so what we need to do is review the newspaper coverage of her time to expand the article. Bermicourt (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously notable, so there must be sources! is a rather unconvincing argument. Surtsicna (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search German newspaper databases before nominating this for deletion? Jahaza (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does one search German newspaper databases?
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, the German culture ministry maintains a decent archive ([6]) and Brigham Young University has a list of others ([7]), but these are far from complete and aren't very user-friendly. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Austrian National Library has scanned (and made searchable) most old newspaper articles dating back a few hundred years (granted that you can read German in old lettering) via ANNO.
There are a few entries about the Princess and her whereabouts throughout her childhood and upbringing as a noteworthy royalty, including details how she ended up in Germany, after being brought up for court outside th country, as well as announcement of her bethroyal that I just came across from a quick look of the Austrian archives - https://anno.onb.ac.at/anno-suche#searchMode=simple&query=%22Anna+Monika+Pia+von+Sachsen%22&from=1
Some of these details should probably be added to the article and definitely add to notability as newspapers at the time did not waste printer ink if it wasn't of note to the public. Raladic (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A listing in a directory and a trivial genealogy dump at a deprecated website do not establish GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep here's a front page story about her in the NY Times as there was an extensive custody battle[8]. And another[9]. More[10][11][12]. There's also a book[13]. This was also of course covered in the German press. Such as here:[14] Jahaza (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In The Sketch[15], in Putnam's Monthly[16], Publishers' Weekly[17]Jahaza (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's WP:SINGLEEVENT, in which she played no active role; she was the toddler of two notable people fighting a custody battle. We do not have standalone articles about such individuals, even if they may be named in the press in passing: e.g. the children of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access any of the NYT links, but if they're just covering the custody battle then I think I agree with Surtsicna that this qualifies as SINGLEEVENT and could be covered in her parents' articles. The book is non-independent and doesn't count. JoelleJay (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I really can't see how a child of a legitimate king of a country would not be notable. The only situation I could see that applying to is if a king's kid died during birth or if we had no information minus a name. Even then, those would be a merge, not a deletion.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Notability is not inherited. Plenty of children of monarchs are not notable. Curbon7 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Raldic and WP:ANYBIO. estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does she meet ANYBIO? JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband Archduke Joseph Francis of Austria, and add the custody battle to the articles of both her parents. I'm sympathetic to these types of figures, but am just not seeing the notability here. Simply being related to notable people doesn't automatically make one notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), and the custody battle is 1E and is more reflective of her parents than her. The entries that exist in the DB and GNL are merely catalog entries, i.e. not ones that would satisfy WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While numerically there are more keep !votes at the moment, only the one by Jahaza is substantive and accurate. The others are either a vague handwaving that "of course royal children are notable", or a misinterpretation of ANYBIO. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Curbon7. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Curbon7. WP:Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  00:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many anti-monarchy thugs and editors here. I'm glad to see all them in one place same time. LoL. IMO, spouses and children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention per @Bearian:. I have checked the sources above and determined that the article meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 149.18.84.13 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Anna_of_Saxony_(1903–1976)&oldid=1176219216"