Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Coste

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 keep. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I was tempted to supervote a redirect close per WP:BLP but the article does have 2 sources in "external links". However, more sources and inline citations are needed so no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination if these issues aren't addressed. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Coste[edit]

Nicole Coste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's subject is only notable for being the mother of an illegitimate child of a prince... so essentially I'm nominating this on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. This is similar to Tamara Rotolo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Isn't standard practice to redirect such titles to the important people to whom they're connected? Seems to me that redirecting to Albert II, Prince of Monaco is the best idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coste has been the subject of extensive and in-depth news coverage. She is not notable merely as the mother of Albert II's son, but as the mistress he kept secret for five years, and with whom he resumed a relationship long enough to father a son after the couple had been ordered to part ways by the Sovereign of Monaco. Her attempts to get that son recognised by the princely court of Monaco, and even to meet with Prince Rainier III about the matter as he was on his deathbed constitute an indedependent tale which became a much-reported royal scandal and cover-up, and prompted the Monegasque court to develop what Albert's lawyer called a "judicial strategy" resulting in the acknowledgement of both her son and, soon afterward, Tamara Rotolo's daughter. Rotolo's relationship with Albert consisted of a couple of trysts while she was on vacation in Monte Carlo, and never received the news reportage of the Coste affair -- whereas Albert's relationship with Coste, romantic, sexual and financial, lasted for years -- literally until he introduced her to his father at an event, and he was commanded to stop seeing her. Nicole Coste falls, rather, into the category of historical royal mistresses -- too many of whom have their own articles on Wikipedia for that category to be dismissed as non-notable (e.g. Regina, Rosamund Clifford, Bessie Blount, Lucy Walter, Nell Gwyn, Isabelle de Ludres, Marie Émilie de Joly de Choin, Philippe, Chevalier de Lorraine, Amalie von Wallmoden, Anna Mons, Madame de Pompadour, Maria Naryshkina, Lola Montez, Marie Walewska, Alice Keppel, Roddy Llewellyn, Koo Stark, Carina Axelsson), even when less is known of their lives and relationship to the royal than is known of Nicole and Albert. Finally, minimisation of this relationship leaves Wikipedia open to the charge of racist collusion, since Albert and Coste were single and Rainier's objection to their relationship and the court's attempt to conceal Coste and her child were driven by the notion that she would be an unacceptable consort for Albert because she is black -- the first known black royal mistress (and baby mama) in Europe since Duke Alexander the Black of Florence's's mother. Their relationship is historically groundbreaking. Why are other Euro-royal mistresses stewn throughout Wikipedia, but Coste must be eliminated? FactStraight (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Interesting stuff. Too bad none of it's in the article. If it were (and referenced, of course), the situation here might be different. —  AjaxSmack  19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The social relationships of people of power give us an eye and handle on the more subtle ways power and societal rules distort each other. In addition, it helps understand eras and how social morals and acceptances change. I feel that removing women who violate social standards, for whatever reason weakens our understanding of social forces. If the woman's race and skin color were indeed an issue, then it makes this article doubly important. My vote is for a little more documentation of the issues at hand, possibly via newspaper articles, where the facts are the speculations of why the situation fell out as it did, rather than knowing what actually happened. Kiersalmon (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This person is the subject of much media attention, and is notable for this alone. This is proven by a quick search. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for her relation with the prince.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For afd, it doesn't matter why someone passes our notability guidelines, but if they pass. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to those who do not pass WP:GNG, not for those who do like this person.--Oakshade (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - everyone above says she receives much media attention on her own, i.e. independent of her status as the prince's mistress, but no one is citing any sources. Can someone link me to at least three? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has suggested in this discussion that she is notable independent of her relationship with the Prince and with his child. Rather, we have said that such relationships have made many, many royal mistresses notable enough for Wikipedia articles (see my earlier comment above, for a small sampling). Provided that being a royal mistress is notable enough to generate coverage of her in depth and in multiple reputable media, that is sufficient to justify this article. Demonstrably, it has generated extensive, in depth coverage. So why "yes" for them but not for Nicole Coste? FactStraight (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because some will be notable on their own, while the others haven't been nominated for deletion yet. See also other stuff exists. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:08, 8 July 2011 (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/Nicole_Coste&oldid=1138162814"