Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme
- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme[edit]
- Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Prod contested with the statement "I am pretty sure all nobility are considered notable," but in a look through relevant WP guidelines I can find no evidence that this is so. Myself, I doubt that inherent notability attaches to the wife of a person in one of the several putative lines of succession to a monarchy that no longer exists. The only sources about her that I can find deal with her recent engagement and marriage to Jean, duc de Vendôme, and the article does not state that she's done anything else that might satisfy WP:BIO. If her marriage alone is enough to establish notability, I'm in error here; but I'd like to see the relevant policy or guideline. Deor (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unambiguous candidate for deletion: the article does not mention anything which could constitute notability, and no sources are given, reliable or otherwise. I have also done an internet search, and can find nothing indicating anything notable about her: the only reason she gets a mention at all is that she has married someone who claims to be the heir to a non-exixtent throne. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Perhaps not all nobility are notable, but this particular lady is
a sciona wife of the foremost pretender to the (admittedly nonexistent) French throne.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (later) — I've added
twothree of the references the previous debate participants couldn't find, and I'd invite them to repeat their searches more thoroughly, because there are certainly others.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I said I couldn't find any sources that weren't about her marriage, and—what do you know?—you haven't managed to find any, either. Furthermore, she's not a "scion" of any "foremost pretenders" to anything, since she wasn't born into the nobility. Deor (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your case then based on WP:BLP1E?
That's a fairly republican view of noble titles, but I'll concede it's probably defensible. I'd be prepared to support a redirect to Jean, duc de Vendôme if that's the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that scion means "descendant"; do you have evidence that she's descended from any pretenders to any throne? And, no, my case is not based on WP:BLP1E. It's based on the lack of reliable sources supporting a claim of notability. Whether her marriage to a nobleman is sufficient to establish such a claim is a question I raised in the nomination and is, as I see it, the crux of this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for correcting me on that. Let the record show she's a member of that family but not a scion.
Which two of the three sources I've cited do you feel fail WP:RS? (If two of them survive, then the GNG is passed).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll say this one more time in a different way: Your sources don't fail WP:RS, but all they establish is that she married the guy. I'm suggesting that her marrying the guy does not establish her notability. Is that clear enough? Deor (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm obviously having a dumb day, because I'm still not getting it.
She's got significant coverage in two reliable sources. How then does she fail WP:N?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources do is say who she has married: how on earth can anyone call that "significant" coverage? She has no significant coverage anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read them, thank you.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read them. As far as I can see the only thing any of them tells us about her apart from her title and the circumstances of her wedding is that she was 31 years old. If I am mistaken please tell us what else they tell us: that would be more constructive than simply saying "please read them". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read them, thank you.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources do is say who she has married: how on earth can anyone call that "significant" coverage? She has no significant coverage anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm obviously having a dumb day, because I'm still not getting it.
- I'll say this one more time in a different way: Your sources don't fail WP:RS, but all they establish is that she married the guy. I'm suggesting that her marrying the guy does not establish her notability. Is that clear enough? Deor (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for correcting me on that. Let the record show she's a member of that family but not a scion.
- My point is that scion means "descendant"; do you have evidence that she's descended from any pretenders to any throne? And, no, my case is not based on WP:BLP1E. It's based on the lack of reliable sources supporting a claim of notability. Whether her marriage to a nobleman is sufficient to establish such a claim is a question I raised in the nomination and is, as I see it, the crux of this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your case then based on WP:BLP1E?
- I said I couldn't find any sources that weren't about her marriage, and—what do you know?—you haven't managed to find any, either. Furthermore, she's not a "scion" of any "foremost pretenders" to anything, since she wasn't born into the nobility. Deor (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (later) — I've added
- Keep: Same reasons as S Marshall. Sigh. Here we go again. --Thorwald (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to her husband. No evidence of independent notability, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Redirects may be cheap, and one would certainly be better than this article, but is there any reason for one? Is there any reason why we should think people are likely to search for this non-notable person? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As far as I can make out, none of the sources say much beyond that she married this prince, with varying degrees of detail about the wedding. That doesn't seem like significant coverage of her in her own right. Why do you disagree, Marshall? Olaf Davis (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the sources are mostly focused on her wedding (which is why I asked Deor about BLP1E earlier). I think there's also biographical coverage of Philomena herself tacked on, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You think there is? Can you tell us what biographical coverage is tacked on? As I said above I can't find any: can you? The sources are not "mostly focused on her wedding": they are about her wedding and nothing else. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2009 (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.