Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria

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) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria

[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)

A classic genealogical entry. No in-depth coverage detected. There was a routine coverage of her wedding. That is not enough to warrant a standalone article about her. Her being born, married, having children, and attending a wedding before dying is hardly something Wikipedia needs to report. Surtsicna (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main source was terrible, I have improved on that. I would agree that Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria is probably not an important figure, but notability as defined in the WP:GNG is nothing to do with importance. Whether everyone likes it or not, royal and imperial genealogy was significant at the time and still is, for the period in question: the idea of a non-notable emperor's granddaughter must I think be wrong, as there are sure to be many more reliable sources giving significant coverage. Far more harm than good is done by the aim of deleting ruling family genealogy from the encyclopaedia the world is coming to rely on. Moonraker (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia very explicitly is not meant to host genealogical entries; WP:NOTGENEALOGY is no less than policy. Her being someone's granddaughter does not warrant a Wikipedia biography (see WP:INVALIDBIO) because relationships do not confer notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). If there is enough in-depth coverage to justify having this article, please do cite it. Merely saying that there must be sources is not quite enough, I'm afraid. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of What Wikipedia is not is your redirect aimed at, Surtsicna? Obviously, we are not a repository for genealogical stuff in general, like Ancestry.com. But, inevitably, there is an awful lot of the genealogy of ruling families here, because it gave individuals great power, including women, at a time when they couldn't get it otherwise, triggered civil wars, and was a large part of national power struggles. You seem to want to take bricks out of that wall, contrary to Jimbo's plan of "all human knowledge will be here". I have added a couple of good English-language sources and am sure there are much better German-language ones. Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. This article is nothing more than a genealogical entry. It records nothing but whom she married; to whom she gave birth; and who her parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents were. If she was of any national importance, as you seem to suggest, you will probably be able to cite in-depth coverage that proves her encyclopedic notability. But as it stands now, her mere existence is no reason to have an article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I said above "I would agree...probably not an important figure". Thank you, I now see the section, which says "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." And that is my point, I have yet to come across a non-notable imperial family. Moonraker (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." Also, she was born a decade after her family became commoners, so there is no imperial family to even talk about. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moonraker is right. I have to disagree with the reasoning by Surtsicna here in support of deletion, and feel that the OP has not considered any alternatives to deletion. As I've said in other discussions today, there are ALWAYS alternatives to deletion. Existing sources appear to show notability, regardless of what the OP believes. I think they should have done a deeper dive into sources on this topic BEFORE an AfD. I have seen this faulty approach in other AfDs where users believe that an AfD will "improve" a page but that is not true, as it puts the page in a sort of limbo instead. Anyway, if the page is kept as a result of this discussion, I hope that the OP will help improve it and make it a better page, as I've been in some AfDs when the discussion has ended, and the original OP does nothing to help improve the page.Historyday01 (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existing sources are two genealogy publications and one that is routine news coverage. You have not attempted to provide any evidence of in-depth coverage that would prove the subject's notability. Surtsicna (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is the Archduchess article up for deletion but the article about her spouse Prince Karl Alfred of Liechtenstein is not? The entries are virtually identical. Comment: Five other-language Wikipedias have articles on the Archduchess. jengod (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERLANGS: "A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia.". It may also be that the other Wikipedias simply haven't gotten around to deleting them, either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which is policy and cannot be overridden by local consensus, no matter how hard the "keep" opinions above attempt to do so. Sandstein 08:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and because deleting Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria while preserving her partner Prince Karl Alfred of Liechtenstein with an identical useless aristocratic bio is like an absolutely perfect and pure lab-grown example of unexamined misogyny jengod (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a prime example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Deletion nominations cannot be bundled, as far as I know, and the article about her husband can (and probably should) be discussed separately. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, nominations can in fact be bundled, and often are for similar enough articles. The question is, should these two be? Ehh, it's kind of a toss-up, but possibly not. Either of the two may or may not be notable on their own, independent of the other. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen years on Wikipedia and I did not know that. Or I did and forgot. Anyway, I would not have bundled them anyway, because I would not want both articles kept because of her husband being briefly heir presumptive to a micro-monarchy (itself no reason to have an article about him). Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His fr.wiki article is in far better shape. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This one is interesting. On one hand there are WP:NOTGENEALOGY concerns, while on the other hand this must be balanced against WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH coverage by WP:RS. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is currently no evidence of notability. A quick search (although not as deep a dive as some people have access to, I'm sure) didn't reveal anything more. As others have already noted, what's here is purely genealogical, plus one wedding announcement. I'm happy to reconsider if someone can dig up some sourcing, but until then, I don't see it. This may be moot at this point too, but I'm especially puzzled at the article title. As far as I can tell from poking around. there was no monarchy in Austria at the time of her birth (or at any point after), meaning the title is fictitious, and the article should have been under her real name. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a webhost for genealogies of claimant nobility. There is nothing that indicates this archduchess being at all notable. No sources providing significant coverage appear to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great-granddaughter of an emperor and sister-in-law of a ruling prince. People like this are generally considered to be notable by reliable publications and were even more so in the past. She was notable in her lifetime, and notability is not temporary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable publications do not decide notability; Wikipedia decides notability based on the existence of reliable sources discussing a topic. And unless you've got some hidden up your sleeve, this !vote is complete fantasy not based on policy. Your argument flies completely in the face of NOTINHERITED. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, somebody else who does not appear to understand the concepts of WP:IAR and WP:BURO and that AfD is an expression of opinion. We are deciding notability. That's what AfD is for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're essentially admitting that your rationale for keeping is WP:ILIKEIT, lack of sources be damned. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Royalty fancruft. WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED). There are no sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; nobility may be inherited, but notability is not. All the keep votes are saying is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. // Timothy :: talk 01:58, 19 March 2023 (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.