Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna of Lindow-Ruppin


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Anna of Lindow-Ruppin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: utterly non-notable minor member of the German nobility of the Middle Ages; copied and pasted almost entirely from WikiTree: The FREE Family Tree". Also please delete Anna von Schlesien-Sagan, which only functions as a redirect to the Anna of Lindow-Ruppin article. Quis separabit?  20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Random IP addresses have been blanking or vandalizing this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The Article isn't completely copied and Pasted from the WikiTree. TGPR Editor 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Could redirect to the article on her husband George I, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, or maybe an article on her family (Lindow-Ruppin is an article on German WP but I can't see one here). She doesn't appear independently notable. I don't think any sources meet our requirements for reliability, but I'm not an expert on genealogical records. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Question: What makes her husband notable on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.162.94 (talk)
 * Rulers of independent states (even principalities) are generally considered notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't delete: She is an ancestor to some important people in history. TGPR Editor 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "She is an ancestor to some important people in history." -- NOTE: Notability cannot be derived by dint of distant consanguinity to notable individuals. Quis separabit?  15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is unclear who her notable royal family members are, and if that would counter WP:NOTINHERITED. Some expert attention is needed. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia not being geneology. If we cannot say anything more than what is said about her in the article, than we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2017 (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.