Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Lubomirska (died 1763)

Add links
Source: 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 merge to Wacław Rzewuski and redirect after merger has been performed. Evidence of WP:SIGCOV has not really been provided, and other claims to notability are contested. Moreover, even if the Order or her title granted some measure of notability, absent SIGCOV the argument for a standalone article is much weakened; subjects that meet our standards for encyclopedic coverage do not require standalone articles if that coverage can be sensibly provided within a larger topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lubomirska (died 1763)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Anna Lubomirska (died 1763) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Notable only as a relative of other people. Reversion to a redirect to her husband Wacław Rzewuski is being resisted. Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is notably enough as a diarist. I do not understand why is a problem with Polish noblewomen when nobody want to delate article about members of English noble families. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the case that nobody wants to delete articles about members of English noble families. Just in the last two months we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Howard, 22nd Earl of Suffolk, which ended as a redirect; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, which was kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try change Anne of Gloucester to redirect. Good luck. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Herzog von Teschen What sources say that she was an important diarist? I am all for saving this, but we need soruces, not claims. The article doesn't say this, and you didn't provide any soruces. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All diarists from the 18th Century are important enough to have a biographical entry. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What policy supports this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the subject is notable as a diarist, then we need more information in the article about that (reliably sourced). When were her diaries published? Who published them? What is notable in those diaries? Are they still in print? I assume that a lot of the relevant sources will be in Polish, so I would recommend Polish-speaking editors to at least give us more sources in hopes that some of them will be accessible via online translation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband, Wacław Rzewuski, where she is listed in the infobox. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 23:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important She received the Order of the Starry Cross and has a biographical note in a biographical dictionary (Dunin Borkowski, Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim). Herzog von Teschen (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I fail to find anything about her. It's not an easy search because there was someone with the same name in the 1600's who gets a lot of mentions, and there is even someone with that very name writing today. I note that her one publication is listed in VIAF under the name "Rzewuska, Anna". Her daughter seems to have had extensive correspondence with Honore de Balzac, which was published, but she herself does not appear in Google Books or in any databases that I can search. Lamona (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Herzog von Teschen: If you access offline sources, please show them like this [1] via Camshot. It would help. Taung Tan (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable historical nobility figure and princess consort. I found this historical source in the Polish language [2] has a biography and discussion on her royal portrait, - that states [sig]: W 1748 r. w Wiedniu zostałauhonorowana najwyższą austriacką państwową odznaką dla kobiet – Orderem Gwiaździstego Krzyża (In 1748, she stayed in Vienna honored with the highest Austrian state badge for women - the Order Starry Cross). Clearly paasses WP:ANYBIO as recevied the highest Austrian state badge for women. extra- Searching with her name in Polish, "Anna z Lubomirskich" has some sources. Taung Tan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That she was a "princess" does not mean she was royalty (royalty is always notable), she was married to a noble prince, not a royal prince, and nobility are not automatically notable.--Aciram (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable person and the Order of the Starry Cross meets WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no personal relevance in her article. An individual should only have an article if they have personal relevance. Her article only contains geneaological information, nothing about her as an individual: no acts of importance, only names and dates. Regardless of nationality, no person (except royalty) should have an article in wikipedia just because they belong to a certain family. If the family is important, it is enough to have an article about the family, not each individual from it. The Order, it seems, were given to many people just because of their social status, and not because they had performed any particular act themselwes.--Aciram (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram: Noo...you are wrong. Royalty are not always notable.... What policy supports this? I've deleted many royalty articles around the world. I reject your comment. the Order Starry Cross is important award per source say. All recipients are notable and are high-ranking members of royal and noble families. Taung Tan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty are almost always regarded to be notable. Nobility is not. Royalty and nobility is not the same thing. They are not judged the same way so they should not be compared. To be given an Order does not necessarily make a person notable. She was only given the order because she was noble, and because of this, the Order does not make her notable. If she had been given the Order because she had performed some sort of notable act, then the Order would have made her notable. But because she was given the Order only because she was a noble, the Order does not make her notable.--Aciram (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly bias on royalty!!! First, you need to know who I am! I only create royalty articles on Wikipedia and am an expert on Asian monarchy. You also need to understand what WP:ANYBIO is ! It is not a joke but a policy. Taung Tan (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridicoulous. Since you choose to insult me with calling me bias for nothing I will not dignify you with further response. This person has no relevance in her article and that's it.--Aciram (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to husband - the article is more than old enough to meet WP:R#HARMFUL. No need to get bogged down in yet another fruitless discussion about merit vs status vs sources. Ingratis (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment according to pl:Order_Krzyża_Gwiaździstego, The Highly Noble Order of the Starry Cross ( German Hochadeliger Sternkreuzorden , Hungarian Hölgyi Csillagkereszt-rend ) - until 1918 the highest women's order of Austria and Austria-Hungary. Clealy satifies WP:ANYBIO. Why are users not aware of this? It is not fair. Wikipedia accepts stub articles if the subjects are notable. @Necrothesp: what do you think admin? Taung Tan (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per reference to WP:ANYBIO, that section states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So with the award the person is likely to be notable but not guaranteed to be notable. Saying that this clearly satisfies ANYBIO is a bit of an exaggeration. I personally would like for there to be at least one source explaining WHY she received this award. I did a search on her name in the #3 source here (Jerzy Sewer Dunin Borkowski: Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim. Lwów 1891, p. 77.) and her name there is Anna Lubomirskich Rzewuska. I'm hoping that page gives sufficient info, but I'll have to try to translate it in order to find out. Lamona (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: Thanks, Please also look on this [3] if you can read Polish. Thansk. Taung Tan (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taung Tan No, I do not read Polish but after doing a bunch of pasting into Google Translate what I get from this is that it is about a painting that was done of her. She is said here to have been given the starry cross but nothing says why. About her we only learn whose daughter she was and who she married. If I have missed some key information in this document, please let me know. Otherwise, merging to her husband's page seems the most sensible thing to do. Lamona (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input from additional users would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge She maybe a diarist, but without sourcing, we can't keep the article. For all of the 10 lines (give or take) of text it is, we could simply plunk it down in her husband's article and call it a day. She might be an interesting subsection in his article, but appears to be lacking sourcing for her own article. I'm not seeing GNG, but she could help flesh out the the spouse's article, thereby giving her some sort of coverage. Or let me explain it this way: she's notable when we discuss him. We take him out of the equation, she isn't notable as she doesn't appear to have done much on her own that isn't noted in relation to the spouse. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like if her notability rests on being a diarist, I need to see those diaries in published form. Her other claim is belonging to the Order of the Starry Cross. Even after reading the article, I can't get a grasp on it. Do you get that because of something you DO, or just because you're born into nobility? The Polish-language version says (via Google Translate, and what in the WORLD did we do before that?) The number of ladies of the order is unlimited, but admission to the ranks of the recipients requires a strict proving of nobility (German: Adelsprobe ), which requires eight noble generations on the father's and mother's side and sixteen noble ancestors of the spouse. This makes it sound as though just being born into a strict line of nobility qualifies you. Joyous! | Talk 01:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Order was simply given to women because of their social rank, not because they had performed any particular act of merit. That makes the Order irrelevant to her notability. The only possible relevance hangs on the word "diarist", but there is only one word about it, a word that is not sourced and gives no further hint about it. It might even be put there by mistake for all we know. --Aciram (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Lubomirska_(died_1763)&oldid=1123960008"