Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara of Württemberg

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 keep. This article has undergone drastic changes and expansion since it was nominated. I think the editors weighing in later in the process are assessing its current state. Originally, it was criticized for only having one source, on genealogy, but that is no longer the case. If editors are interested in redirection or merging at this point, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara of Württemberg

Barbara of Württemberg (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)

Fail to pass WP:GNG. I searched for sources but can't find much. Jimandjam (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jimandjam (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is of historical interest. Sources are not likely to be found by internet searches. A further source is given in the French and Italian versions of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - historical figure, notable from position in royalty. Editor not being able to find online sources does not imply lack of notability. Sources likely to be offline. MurielMary (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no substantial sources. It also says nothing of substance about her. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. If all we can say about someone is who their parents were, who they married and who their children were, we do not need an article on them period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to husband's page - a solely genealogical entry entirely made up of vital events - births, marriage and death. There isn't a single item of information that isn't found on her husband's or father's pages, except for the undocumented claim that all of her life events occurred at Stutgart, which if it is even authentic can be added without a formal merge. No indication of notability, and even if she was, this is crying for WP:NOPAGE. Agricolae (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ipigott. Notable historical nobility figure with articles on four other wikis. Not all the sources have to be online and/or in English.--Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband's page per above. I looked at the other four, and except for the Ukrainian, they are all copies of each other or this one, excepting padding out with family tree diagrams. The Ukrainian article has more about her family, but nothing additional about her. There's nothing that needs be said about her that isn't already in her husband's article, and her marriage is the only claim made to notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think this is the kind of situation that that sentence has in mind, since and the first and third volumes of Hie gut Wirtemberg allewege were published in RS, independent publications. Furius (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She was the consort of the ruler of a principality in an age when such rulers wielded real power (not just figureheads) and their marriages were politically significant. There is nearly always a power game at play in such marriages which goes beyond the personal and makes her role notable here. SpinningSpark 15:40, 28 July 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.