Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg

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 — Caknuck 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg

Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable duchess. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Duchess Marie, while a princess of a grand ducal family, has no notable achievements. Titles do not automatically confer notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Although families as a whole might be notable (such as the House of Mecklenburg), individuals members may not be, such as Duchess Marie. Duchess Marie's article is a pure genealogical entry and violates WP:NOT 2.6, Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Note also that other royals are not automatically notable on the basis of their titles. Charles 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm leaning delete on the basis that this was a created title that did not survive her (her father was a grand duke whose title did continue with her brother). I suggest a merge to either her father's article or the family/house article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The title was not created for her, she was born a duchess. In Germany, all children of a male noble or royal are nobles or royal themselves. Think about it as a traditionally inherited surname that comes from the father. It is, however, not a unique position and not notable unless one is a ruler (she was not, just a princess) or has done something notable. Charles 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Automatic or manual, it amounts to the same thing -- a title which expired with her. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Keep and redirect to father's page The NY Times references are sufficient to establish notability: [1], [2] (better link here[3]), [4]. Thanks to the editor who contributed the references to the article (and to the NY Times for making so much available on-line). JJL 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC) JJL 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the big whomp, just clean it up a bit and delete it. It's fine to have short articles. It's not like it's wasting paper, it's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.196.130 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How cryptic. I wish you would have spoken when it came to vandalizing ancestry templates with disruptive edits. Charles 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ...clean it up a bit and delete it... ? What's the point of cleaning it up if you're going to delete it? Phil Bridger 11:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Haven't you heard of the saying "never pass a fault"? Charles 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to father's page as JJL stated. She must be mentioned there. Monsieurdl 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The nominator clearly hasn't done any research about this lady. If he had, he would have seen that there were two articles in the New York Times about her marriage (at the time it was not common for the daughter of a reigning sovereign to marry morganatically), and a further two about her divorce. Her marriage was also covered in The Times (which also mentions her in passing in several other articles). If one looks in German-language newspapers, one finds even more references. Noel S McFerran 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, where are these articles? Marriage announcements were not sufficient to keep other princesses and divorces are only of passing interest. Indeed, all of what you had just said could very well be included in the "issue" section of her father's article. Charles 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If Charles had done any research about this lady (or bothered to look at the articles about her), then he would know that this lady is important because of the things which happened in her own life. She is one of the few princesses of her time known to have conceived a child out of wedlock. The affair which her husband had with Infanta Eulalia of Spain is notorious and is covered in detail in the article by Ricardo Sainz de Medrano in Royalty Digest. Then there's the fact that Marie's husband killed her brother. The whole thing is something of a cause celebre. What this article needs is expansion, not deletion. I'm perfectly willing to do it; but please don't go on asking for this article to be deleted. Noel S McFerran 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like her husband should have an article to me. Charles 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Presumably Charles is being humorous. There was an article about Marie's husband until today when it was speedily deleted. I leave it to others to surmise who might have nominated it. Noel S McFerran 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Serious, actually. And no, there was not an article about Marie's husband until today, there was an article about Marie's son until today, and yes, I did nominate it. Charles 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not up to the nominator to do research beyond reading what's in the article. The page as it stood at the time of nomination did not establish any notability, which is enough to justify deletion. Now that Noel S McFerran has done such sterling work by expanding the article and providing references I make it a Strong keep. Phil Bridger 11:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to father as above. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep now notability has been established by Mcferran. - dwc lr 12:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete/merge as nominator. I still do not see notability, only life events of passing interest for a non-notable individual which are not of wide significance. Charles 17:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment yes, I see much that happened around her, but while I appreciate he improvements made to the article it's still difficult to see her individual notability. However, the several NY Times articles listed appear, from the titles, to focus on her and her husband; perhaps the only interest in them was their noble status, but this may establish that they were considered notable at the time. It may be worth looking more deeply into those. JJL 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Merely saying (repeatedly) that somebody is not notable doesn't make it so. One would have to provide evidence, e.g. that the individual is not mentioned in any books or articles. That is not the case with this individual. There are multiple newspaper and journal articles specifically about Marie (not about her father and just mentioning Marie). That's enough to show Wikipedia:Notability ("Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.") Marie is not only notable, she is downright famous: a princess who conceived out of wedlock after a possibly forced encounter with a servant and married morganatically to a man who later killed her teenage brother in a duel. Noel S McFerran 18:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would not say coverage is substantial enough or that she was downright famous. Facts of only passing interest at best. There is probably more reason for articles on Duke Charles Borwin and Count Georges de Jametel then there is for an article on Duchess Marie. Mention of someone does not make them notable and it is incorrect to say that proof of no mention is what is needed. Again, an example of someone who is a member of a notable family, but not notable. Charles 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment per my modified opinion up top, I do believe that she would be considered notable. The articles list her name first and speak about her as though readers could reasonably be familiar with her. This is a keep. JJL 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable facts about extensive notoriety at her own time. Surviving press coverage and verifiable facts. I think the article stands well on its own. And mention of someone in the press is pretty good criteria of notability in my opinionDimadick 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep In agreement with Noel S McFerran and dwc lr. Tim Foxworth 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)
  • Keep A modern princess shouldn't be deleted because the image of royalty her life conveys is not the preferred image. Lethiere 06:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not try to put words in the mouths of others by referring to something that actually was not said. Charles 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not try to tell people what they are allowed to think printed words are really intended to accomplish, unless you have reason to know that the words are your own.Lethiere 03:45, 14 November 2007 (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.