Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandra de Osma


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Alessandra de Osma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hanover ceased to have a royal family in 1866, done little of note herself. PatGallacher (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per significant coverage. Subject is notable not just for her marriage, but also as a designer and her work in the fashion world., , , , , .. not including the many articles about her wedding and birth of her children. And to the point made by the nominator, her notability as a individual does not have to do with whether or not the House of Hanover is a reigning house (to correct, they held official titles until 1919, when they were removed from the British peerage). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that as well as a degree of monarchist bias in some of these articles, there could also be a degree of anti-German and anti-Italian bias, suggesting that the unification of these countries in the mid-19th-century was not legitimate, and even anti-British bias, suggesting that depriving some people of their British titles around WWI was not reasonable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a ridiculous assumption. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as agree per Willthacheerleader18. VocalIndia (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)←
 * Keep, being connected to a defunct royal family may not make someone notable but it also isn't a sign of non-notability. Looking at google-news I see that de Osma receives significant on-going coverage and therefore meets GNG.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 09:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Editors who are interested in this discussion for deletion may also be interested in this princess, who receives significant on-going coverage. VocalIndia (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep notability has clearly been demonstrated. - dwc lr (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (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.