Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois


 * 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. A merge discussion on the article's talk page would be highly encouraged. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A little boy who died before his third birthday. Not independently notable. No need for an article that goes into excessive detail about his "titles and styles" etc. He can simply be mentioned in his father's and/or mother's article -- in his own section if we want to be very generous. Hans Adler 08:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:I have read many other similar articles about such noble boys or girls who died early, even in infancy. As other similar pages are kept, so should this page be.Henry ⅩⅦ of Bavaria (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid argument. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And indeed the "other similar articles about such noble boys or girls" need to be deleted or merged as well. We must start somewhere. Hans Adler 10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean that Wikipedia should have an equivalent attitude towards all such cases, no matter have them all kept or all deleted and merged. Both choices are OK to me. Now I will wait for the authorized decision to give us an answer.Henry ⅩⅦ of Bavaria (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination seems to be arguing for merger which is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a widely used (although not universally accepted) practice to approach potentially controversial merges through AfD, so that they cannot be undone. For articles on subjects that are not actually notable that's perfectly proper. Such articles should never be created in the first place. Hans Adler 10:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BEFORE which explains the proper preliminaries before bringing issues here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article about his father. There is not that much in this article that is not covered in the article about his father already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to article about the father. Wikipedia does have somewhat of a snobbish distinction between the children of royalty and those of mere mortals, but there's a limit to what one can say about a 3 year old child who, unfortunately, died in childhood.   The article has nothing to say, and fills up the space with material along the lines of "Alexandre's father was...." and "his sister was..." and "he might have...".  Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Naturally I say keep; I dont see why it is necessary to delete it; there are plenty of articles of the same nature within English/British, Spanish, Russian, Austrian royals and various other nobles who died yet have they still have articles. He may not have lived long but surely it would look ridiculous to merge him into his fathers article (or mothers)!? I am more than willing to rewrite it as people seem to be whining for no reason Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want this article to be kept, it's actually very easy: Just point us to the "significant coverage in reliable sources". "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." See WP:GNG.
 * Or if you prefer trying something else, have a look at WP:Notability (people). This guideline is sometimes a bit more liberal with who it declares to be notable.
 * If it turns out that this child, who died before he ever got the chance to do something interesting or become influential, or pursue any of the other ways of obtaining notability, was not any more notable than Mark Twain's father, then he is not going to get more articles about himself than Mark Twain's father, i.e. none at all. I am saying this as someone who has read many of the child's mother's letters and loves the unique insights she gave into the French court to which she was displaced from the little German residence town in which I studied. We are writing an encyclopedia, not collecting rare stamps. Hans Adler 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a start on John Marshall Clemens. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To judge from what you have written I can't see why he should be notable. Notability is not inherited. Hans Adler 00:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is all this about Monsieur Twain!? I have tweeked Alexandre Louis' article Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC

Merge: I know the project has other pages on junior royals, but perhaps the time has now come when we need to draw a line and define what makes a "royal" notable enough to have a page of their own. Such phrases as "Had Alexandre Louis lived, Philippe might have become a cardinal, a traditional destiny for second sons in the French royal family, or he might have married Mademoiselle de Nantes." concern me greatly. He might just as easily have run off with the second footman and joined the circus. Let's stick to fact not probablies because probablies and perhapses can make anyone notable.  Giano  00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment weak keep, I think. Had he been the son of the Dauphin, then I would call this a slam-dunk surefire keep.  Being a nephew of the heir, and dying young both rather reduce notability.  If we had a clear rule that said 'all grandchildren of reigning monarchs are notable' that would be one thing, but we don't.  OTOH, such a rule would be reasonable.  I'd keep this article, but I don't have any real objections to it being deleted or rather merged. David V Houston (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (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.