Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia

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. It is not sufficient to allude to the existence of lots of sources without presenting specific ones that are believed to best indicate the subject's notability (WP:THREE). Currently all we have to go on is the NYT article, which is not enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia[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)

No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or otherwise. Coverage consists solely of minor mentions from genealogy sites and short news coverage of her wedding. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the very suggestion it be deleted is utterly ridiculous. Highly important German family still constantly in the press. A Google News search for "Marie Cécile Prinzessin" brings up 164 results -- not all for her, because there's more than one princess who bore that name, but a very good many. It's critical to know their backstory and who is who. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this particular person receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the most general notability guideline, then this person is probably notable. If this person was just a member of a notable family and never received her own significant coverage (and doesn’t satisfy another notability guideline), then there shouldn’t be a standalone article about her. Notability also isn’t about usefulness in writing other things nor genealogical background. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClearBreeze: I hope you know that Google hits is not a valid deletion argument. Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: ClearBreeze has already been indefinitely blocked, so they may not read that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have any individual notability herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:2484:F653:CB12:53FE (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m satisfied if even just for one event (marriage) she passes GNG although I suspect there will be more coverage. She appeared on the cover of Stern (magazine), her marriage the first by a Hohenzollern in Berlin since 1913 was widely reported (NYT is cited in article, news reels covered). - dwc lr (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds exactly like what WP:BLP1E says shouldn’t have an article on Wikipedia: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has not received the level of coverage throughout her life that would justify having a stand alone article on her. If one event got huge coverage than that is a clear case of not showing actual notability. The insistence that Wikipedia give consideration and deference to all members of a royal house that has been out of power for over a century is also not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three out of the four sources are self-published sites/blogs, one of which is deprecated. That leaves a single wedding announcement as her claim to notability, and likely the only topic specific to her that would remain on the page after clearing out the (BLP-violating) list of non-notable living minors. JoelleJay (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. While some of the sources are trash and speculate that she would be Queen of England, there are literally Megabytes of information on the Interwebs about her. The subject is the firstborn of the firstborn going back to Queen Victoria. That alone has made her notable and periodically she gets more than a footnote in a news article. BLP1E doesn't apply because her marriage, her philanthropy, and being in the British line of succession mean that every royal birth and death changes her position in the line and it's reported breathlessly in the European media. It's not important to Americans, because we got rid of royalty, but for many people around the world, she is important and thus in the news from time to time. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can select one or two of the megabytes of information about her that most clearly demonstrate notability? --JBL (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Isn’t this the third-born of the second-born of the first-born of the first-born (and last German Emperor) of the first-born of Queen Victoria? She is not the firstborn of the firstborn going back to anybody.
There are also megabytes of info about lots of non-notable people. Please provide RSes with significant coverage about her in relation to more than a single event. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They might have gotten her confused with Princess Felicitas of Prussia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her spouse, Duke Friedrich August of Oldenburg, who just might have the barest notability. This person who has only received coverage relating to their wedding. The lack of coverage means that they fail WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogical database. This applies even to people who were part of royal families. Even there we need to demonstrate actual actions, power and coverage. Not every child born to a monarch is notable, especially when the child dies before her parent becomes a monarch. This applies doubly to members of deposed royal families. As they say in Disc World, some things need to be "dragged kicking and screeming into the century of the fruit bat".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2020 (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.