Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (1748)


 * 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. A consensus for deletion has been established. North America1000 03:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (1748)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am uncertain on how we can write a comprehensive article on a child that was nearly stillborn. I am having quite a bit of trouble with finding valid sources on this child that mention her for more than a few short lines of text. Also, I have little faith in the reliability of "mariaantoinette.npage.de." This article relies almost exclusively on this one reference. I am unsure of who owns the website and where they obtained their information. Furthermore, judging by the template at the bottom of the page, we do not have articles on a significant number of longer-lived Austrian archduchesses. If this page is to exist, then it should be a redirect. There is simply no possibility that this article can improve from its present state as a stub-class article. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 18:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being a stub article is not grounds for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggested this article for deletion as I do not believe that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable. She does not seem to have any coverage outside of works about her parents. Most of those mentions are rather brief, and do not indicate that she is independently notable. The subject of an article is not notable merely because they are or were related to a notable subject. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – In that she only lived about 12 hours, back in the 1700's, and we are still talking about her….I believe that is notable. ShoesssS Talk 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * She is barely discussed at all. Outside of biographies of her parents, she is only mentioned in genealogical websites. When I clicked the JSTOR, the Google Scholar and The New York Times options that this page provided, I found nothing. On Google Books, I found one book that mentioned her. This book described her in two sentences and then quickly moved on to the birth of another child. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 22:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Susmuffin .  I am not disagreeing with this nomination, hence my comment versus a Keep or Delete opinion.  Maybe a Merge/Redirect would be more appropriate?  Looking through the Maria Theresa piece I noticed that the was no section with regards to children.  This could be a nice start to a new section.  Just a suggestion.  Regards. ShoesssS Talk 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERIT. Had it not been for the notability of her parents her existence would not even be known. Blue Riband► 02:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This infant girl died on the day she was born. There is nothing even vaguely remotely close to notable about her. The article is mainly about how being pregnant with her effected her mother. The current article on the mother of this child has a whole paragraph on her children and pregnancies that presents the issues involved in a much more encyclopedic way than is presented here. This is ludicrous overkill at a level that is not needed in any encyclopedia. I take this up a nothc. If there was a reighning female monarch at the level of actually running the government of her country today the way Maria Theresa was in Austria in the 18th-century, and her 10th or so child died the day she was born, I would still support delete. Of course, for the record, I am also going to oppose creating an article on the first royal child of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and no amount of "this is the first partly of African descent British royal" is going to persuade me otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A child who died perinatal death is inevitably NN, even where the mother was an empress. We might possibly redirect to a list of her children.  The alleged portrait is almost certainly of a token baby, not from the actual body.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the point above that a child who died so quickly is unlikely to be notable. If her death had a considerable impact (and the article as it stands does not seem to show that it did) then a case could be made, but even then it could probably be better covered in her mother's article or possible her father's. Dunarc (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - a tenth of 16 children, and she lived for hours? no. Agricolae (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2018 (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.