Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nora of Oettingen-Spielberg

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Nora of Oettingen-Spielberg[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)

Non-encyclopedic article on a person from a noble family with no significant accomplishments. WP is not a social calendar. The title is only a courtesy title for what was once a ruling house 2 centuries ago, not an official one. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find very little coverage of her, just a bit about her marriage, and the only mentions of her stationery line are in ads, lists of things to buy, or on her own company websites. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A feature (of her and her work) in Wall Street Journal's Magazine is hardly a "mention".. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in regards to her career/accomplishments, she was referred to by WSJ as one of "Three Top Stationers" [1]. Significant coverage of wedding also establishes notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being the scion of a royal house may be useful socially but does not make the individual notable. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being the member of a royal house does not make one notable, of course, but doesn't being the subject of articles in Augsburger Allgemeine, WSJ., Evening Chronicle, and Northumberland Gazette establish notability? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marrying into the House of Percy seems a significant accomplishment. And the coverage in sources such as the WSJ satisfies WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rework The article in its current form looks more like and advertisement piece, rather than an actual worthwhile informational article, and there really is no effort around establishing the notability. I'd say It would be better to delete the article in its current form and see if anyone is up to rewrite this thing. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why delete it and then rewrite it, instead of rewriting now? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she might be notable by the standards of the Social Register, but not by Wikipedia's standards. Notability is not inherited and marrying a notable person is not sufficient; I'm not sure her husband is notable either (and he doesn't have an article currently). References are all about her wedding or are non-independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ is not about her wedding. Not to mention the Social Register wouldn't include Europeans. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2018 (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.