Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria, Archduchess of Austria-Este

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Luisa Maria, Archduchess of Austria-Este

Has this "Princess" done anything notable? I can't see ay assertion of notability. She is just a person and there is nothing notable specified. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question - aren't members of royal houses automatically notable? If the article was stubby I'd say redirect to her parents, but it isn't... Syrthiss 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes them notable? Blood? What if i was to say my blood was more royal then hers because im english, would that make me notable :P? i doubt it. All i can see is some child. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I know that monarchies (especially modern ones that are mainly ceremonial) seem pointless to many (most?) of us, but generally my criterion is nth in line to the throne where n is a single digit. Barely makes the cutoff here. Fan-1967 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm torn on this one. She hasn't done anything of note yet, and I can't find any English-language articles from reliable sources that focus on her. But I suppose that's normal, as she's 11. However, with royalty I tend to agree with Fan-1967; she's born into notability, however scant. Prince Harry has been notable since birth, and the biggest news he ever made was dressing up like a Nazi for Halloween. In my opinion, royal children are notable simply for their close association with truly notable adults. Kafziel 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, wasn't there also press about Harry smoking ganja about 5 years back? At least in the states I think that was a bigger story than the Nazi Halloween constume...--Isotope23 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ha ha... yeah, that Willy is a real prodigy. Kafziel 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as far as I remember, there has never been an official consensus on notability of the nobility. Personally, I don't believe in automatic notability by birth, hence delete as this person does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't believe in the automatic notability of anyone from Belgium. But for royalty, I just look at it kind of like WP:BAND, where if one famous guy is in the band, the others may be notable by association. I could get behind a merge and redirect, but not deleting it completely. Kafziel 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, despite there not being anything much to say about her except who she's related to. No objection to a merge into an article on the family tho- that's what we do with minor fictional characters. Many would argue that royalty are inherently article-worthy, and this might be arguable. But even if that's considered borderline, I see little point to deletion of this. Friday (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All the other members of the royal family have pages, so I think that we should keep this one. I would also argue that she passes WP:BIO as notible. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• How is she; Someone has yet to assert notability. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asserted notability. There's no concrete policy on it, so it remains a matter of opinion, but I have given reasons. Kafziel 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Because she is Princess Imperial of Austria, Princess Royal of Hungary and Bohemia, and is ninth in line for the throne. I think that if she was a member of the British royal family, no one would be asking if she was notible. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)- as a side note, shouldn't there be a WP:ROYAL guideline for this? Thε Halo ^Θ 16:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I believe members of royal families are inherently notable. NawlinWiki 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per comments from Fan-1967. Scorpiondollprincess 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the child, because there are so few members in this species that it might become extinct. If we ban royalty in the world then it will only be a nice souvenir in Wikipedia. --DLL 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Royal, in line for succession, decent closeness to reigning monarch and succession... She's not so very notable yet, but it would be a shame to delete that piece now.--Svartalf 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - being a member of the royal family (at least inner circle) makes one automatically notable. WilyD 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• How does it? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The same way Paul McCarty would've been worthy of his own article if he had become a cobbler after the Beatles broke up. I'm not really sure how to explain something that seems so obvious to me ... there are a number of things where being X makes one inherently notable, so that all Prime Ministers of Canada are inherently worthy of an article, for example, even if they're John Turner bland. WilyD 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• He would of done something notable tho, but being born doesnt make you notable. He wasnt notable till he was in the beatles. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• If I may, its a kind of name recognition. For example, you're standing around with a bunch of other people at a party. Someone says "Oh look its Clint Eastwood", and likely many people will turn to look at Clint Eastwood. Someone says "Oh look its John Jones" and unless there's some reasonably famous person named John Jones, maybe one or two people will look. In this case, if someone says "Oh look its Princess Luisa Maria of the Royal House of Belgium" I believe (being a dumb american with no royal house myself) that there would be a similar, if smaller, reaction to Clint Eastwood.Syrthiss 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nobody's saying being born makes her notable. Being Princess of Austria-Este makes her notable, regardless of how she obtained the position. Every Dalai Lama is notable, but their chosen either becase a) They're born with the soul of the previous Dalai Lama or b)They lucky guessers. Either way, they didn't really do anything. In any event, to claim that being born into something is less encyclopaedic than achieving something through hard work or whatever is a pretty obvious violation of WP:NPOV. WilyD 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

People at large have heard of her, not of you, capice? --Svartalf 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite this? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - there is a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) for those who are interested. Kafziel 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Further Comment per that criterion, she qualifies, if barely. as per 1.1 (ok, stuff from people magazines and nobility watchers can be regarded as trivial anyway), she's been covered by the press; and 3: her titles may be empty, but here they are. --Svartalf 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - well, we shouldn't use those criteria in this case since they are really at the essay stage of development. If at some point they become guideline then they become a benchmark we can use. Syrthiss 11:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, she doesn't qualify per those guidelines anyway. #3 specifies a substantive title and none of her titles is substantive. -- Necrothesp 21:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Ninth in line for the Belgian throne is notable enough. -- Necrothesp 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment notability can be automatic at birth: look at Louise Brown. Does notability mean one gets an article on WP? Suri Cruise and Brooklyn Beckham redirect to parents' articles. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That baby was notable before and after birth, she was born notable by the fact she was the first baby concieved that way -- thus a medical break through. The 2 latter children have done nothing notable and do not warrant articles. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I second the points made by WilyD:
  • 1. Royalty are intrinsically noteworthy, not because of personal deeds, but because their kinship to monarchs confers upon them national (and sometimes international) position (usually, though not invariably, reflected by title), fame, and constitutional relevance.
    2. Excluding them would be a reversal of encyclopaedic practice, usually defended on relatively recent, egalitarian principles that are inadmissably POV: believing that royalty shouldn't be intrinsically notable seems to be a growing trend, but it does not make them non-notable. Whereas treating royalty as non-notable is ahistorical (not to mention Western-centric): The burden of proof that historical encyclopaedic practice has been overturned due to a sufficiently great change in current standards of notability (rather than due to, e.g. space considerations -- a limitation from which Wiki does not suffer) rests upon the advocate for change.
    3. Thus far no argument has been put forth here that royalty have lost notability -- rather, the chief argument presented here is, implicitly, that they did not deserve it previously, and that Wiki should pro-actively strip them of it. Not Wiki's job.
    4. In this particular case, I also agree with Halo that the question of notability would not get serious consideration if the princess in question were a granddaughter of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (e.g. Princess Beatrice of York) rather than of Albert II of Belgium, although both are current monarchs. Lethiere 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think the same people would still consider them non-notable. The difference is that few would dare to slap a non-notability claim on a grandchild of Queen Elizabeth, since there are far more Britons here than Belgians. They probably think it's easier to get away with doing it to a Belgian princess. -- Necrothesp 10:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per The Halo and other comments above, close members of royal families are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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.