Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinis, Duke of Porto

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. Star Mississippi 02:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinis, Duke of Porto[edit]

[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)

Dinis de Braganza is not a notable figure. WP:NOTINHERITED - relationships do not confer notability and as Portugal has been a republic for over 100 years any royal connection is just trivia D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely oppose the deletion, Portugal has been a republic for over 100 years, however, that doesn't stop Dinis from being noteworthy, his parents and sibilings have Wikipedia pages and he himself is referenced in multiple reliable sources, see the references of the article. Diogo Costa (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- His parents and siblings having Wikipedia pages does not make him notable - WP:BLPFAMILY.
  I did not say that Dinis could not be noteworthy, I'm saying that he is currently not noteworthy as being in line for a throne that hasn't existed for a long time is not noteworthy. You could write a similar article about almost anyone - they were born, they had family, they had a baptism, they read a sermon at a wedding, they did an internship. What about any of that is noteworthy? D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Wikipedia:BEFORE Topic C2: This page was recently created. Therefore, request to give more time to update page before even considering deletion. Topic C3: Request that any issues are firstly raised in the Talk page, so the community can contribute to any alterations and improvements. The deletion request was made straight away bypassing the Talk page and members contributions.
Dinis of Braganza baptism was broadcasted by the Portuguese national broadcast channel RTP. Reference added to the page. Therefore, conferring notoriety to him as a public and historical figure. Furthermore, as a male line descendant of the Miguelist branch and association to his father and brother, both senior members of this same branch of the Royal House of Braganza, Dinis becomes part of Portugal's history. Dinis is godfather to Prince Alphonse of France, son of the current pretender to the french throne, via the Orleanist claim, thus solidifying his presence amongst international royals and other claimants. This page is set as a Pretender, and if Portugal were to restore is monarchy at this moment in time, he would be second in line to the throne, following his brother and his father's possible ascension to King/Portugal's throne. So, in conclusion, all the information's presented stand as of national relevance and not simple as mere "trivia". GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article are 1 (Sabado): Dinis' parents answering questions about themselves (not independent) N. 2 (Miraheze): UGS, BLPVIO N. 3 (DGABC): trivial, churnalized press release announcing his baptism N. 4 (RTP): primary video coverage of his baptism N. 5 (Point de Vue): first-person interview/recounting of a meeting with the family at their home, with some limited background on Dinis, though I can't access the rest of this source. 6 (TVI): video interview of the children, primary and non-independent N. 7 (Caras): passing mention (not even named) in description of video of his sister's wedding N. 8 (Observador): two passing mentions in primary coverage of the wedding N. 9 (Selfie): passing mention in wedding coverage N. 10 (IdNP): name in list on family-founded website N.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SÁBADO, independent? Nearly all media is biased. Its a popular weekly magazine in Portugal.
- RTP is the Portuguese national state broadcaster, what more do you want?
- TVI a very popular private Portuguese television channel
- Caras, another popular magazine in Portugal
- Observador a popular newspaper with millions of Portuguese readers
- Diogo Costa (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem not to know what independent sources are all about. People talking about themselves are autobiographies, not independent sources. You have failed to rebut the statements above that pretty much all of what this article is based upon is either raw video recording footage, mere passing mention and namechecking that is not in-depth, or autobiographical sources.
    The arguments that this person would be royalty in a mdifferent alternative universe don't hold much water, either. Wikipedia is about this universe.
    Uncle G (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is why there was a mention to give time to improve the page with other sources. I propose this conversation is moved to "talk" rather then being straight away in the "deletion" section, like it was done without a chance for improvement.
      In this universe, Dinis is considered a pretender. That is why the page was changed to pretender. But someone keeps changing the infobox to "royalty", which Dinis isn't. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - You had all of the time in the world to do that before you started a badly sourced biography of a living person. Per the project:biographies of living persons policy you two should have got your ducks in a row with rock solid sourcing first. In fact, that's a good idea for every subject. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is invalid and unstained, as there is relevant information's that the public can still read, even if the article is not "complete". Also, due to the nature of community active participation, all articles are up to constant modification.
        Like I said in one of my above's comments, this discussion should've been taken to the talk page before being considered to deletion. So the community could discuss improvements. All the suggestions opposing so far seem rooted in a republicanism sentiment. Therefore, I continue to propose to take this to the talk page. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well if you don't stick to BLP policy, and don't come up with any satisfactory sources, which so far you have not, another policy, project:deletion policy says that this will be deleted. It's your loss if you don't do things properly as policy says. I've told you the correct thing to do. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This discussion was not brought to the Talk page first, so the community could give their inputs. I already provided policy examples in my comments above. Re-read them. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose:~~ as per comments above. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: You can only vote on deletion discussions once.

98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Apart from that, JoelleJay's analysis of the sources demonstrates the lack of notability. Aintabli (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (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.