Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide, Countess consort of Savoy

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 Amadeus III, Count of Savoy. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide, Countess consort of Savoy[edit]

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

Non notable royal that nobody knows anything about. This article will not go beyond the sentence that is already on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs) 12:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this stage, she does not look notable and is covered in Amadeus III, Count of Savoy. However, this stub was created within the last 24 hours and may still be under construction. Kooky2 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't, this user creates stubs like this to fill out List of consorts articles and never expands them; some are impossible to be expanded like this one. Example Faidiva of Toulouse hasn't gone beyond one sentence since its creation 19 months ago. When you talk to her or him, he/she gets offend. And when you tried to speedy delete these stubs, it never goes through. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not quite understand the above hostile comment. If I have in any way offended The Emperors New Spy in any way in the past, then of course I am sorry about this.

It is allowed to create stubs at Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, the person starting the stub do not need to expand it. It is after all the general policy, that the articles in Wikipedia can be started and developed by all users who has knowledge of the articles' subject, and this is a great strength, I think, of Wikipedia. I freely admit that I often start stubs about royal consorts! I have no malice in doing this. Stubs are there to be developed by those who has knowledge about the subject, and a person who have the knowledge, but might be reluctant to start an article, will find it easier to develop a stub. I have always felt that this is a strength of Wikipedia. In the same manner, I have myself developed other stubs about subjects I have knowledge about. I see no malice in this. Nor do I see that it in any way breaks wikipedia rules. My intent is good. There is a reason to why deletion of royal consorts never goes through: the consort of a monarch is automatically relevant, and it is always possible to develop them in one way or another. Wikipedia has no time limit to when an article should be developed. --Aciram (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram - I was hoping that even in your stub you could find something notable about this obscure royal consort beyond that she lived, married and had no issue - which is covered elsewhere. You need to show that she is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". If not, it fails WP:BIO - and should be deleted. Kooky2 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally, the consort of a monarch is generally considered to be relevant because of her/his position. Queen consorts are regarded to be relevant just because they are queens. This monarch in question has the title count rather than king, but was still a monarch of a state and thereby his consort are the consort of a monarch. As it is at present in wikipedia, the consorts of monarchs are always regarded to be relevant just because of their position, and I started this article aware of this fact, not as some sort of test to introduce such a policy. --Aciram (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any WP rule that would support this? Otherwise each case should be judged on their merits. I believe that these historical figures are on the edge of notability and require some facts or events from a reliable source like an historian to give biographical detail to support their inclusion. Kooky2 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Aciram or someone else can cite a policy or guideline or even a common outcome of AFDs which supports his/her claim of inherent notability for such obscure "consorts of monarchs." In this test case, it would be helpful to find if there are multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources as required to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amadeus III, Count of Savoy; there don't seem to be enough sources or material to justify an independent article here. (Incidentally, both this article and the Amadeus III article contradict the only ref provided, which states that Adelaide did have issue – but obviously, that's rather irrelevant here.) Sideways713 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above - not enough significant coverage from sources to provide sufficient detail for an article. Kooky2 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to think a stub might be marginally useful, if for no other reason than to differentiate between the subject and the much later Princesses Henriette Adelaide of Savoy and Marie Adélaïde of Savoy. A redirect would probably serve the same purpose but on the basis that "Adelaide of Savoy" might conceivably be a searched term, we should at least acknowledge, I think, the usefulness of the disambiguation. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Created Adelaide of Savoy, for all women who were born or married into the House of Savoy

Good work ENS - I'm happy for this one to be Redirected on that basis. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband I suspect that this article has been created to complete a series of succession boxes, but these do not work well for consorts, since there is liable to be a gap in the sequence when the crown passes to a batchelor. Savoy was a sovereign state (probably within the Holy Roman Empire), so that this is not a mere peerage, but unless the article can become something more than the mere stub that it is, we should not keep it. I suspect the problem ius that little is known except that the marriage took place. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 3 November 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.