Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg


 * 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 no consensus. Star  Mississippi  14:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Virtually all sources are self-promotional from either her or her publishers. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Royalty and nobility. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it more than a little strange that this page existed for fourteen years (since 2008) under the name Carina Axelsson, but that two weeks after the page is moved to a new name with a princely title it gets nominated for deletion.  Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the third nomination. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two AfD discussions can be found here (the result of which was to keep) and here (no consensus). --Kbabej (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. She has virtually zero coverage in independent RS that focus on her specifically. Town & Country magazine covered her wedding, but did not give remotely significant commentary on her. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * German media also focuses on her husband, not her, with the exception of a non-trivial but hyper-local article on an advent calendar she made. Biographies should not be built on recaps of tiny community events. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but move back to the former title, as the name by which she is better known. See Articles for deletion/Carina Axelsson where this article was kept, with notable contribution to discussion from the respected .  Pam  D  07:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you've canvassed, please ping everyone who contributed to the previous discussions, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the nomination. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Just blatant canvassing now? And notability standards in 2009 were orders of magnitude laxer than they are now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't find which template to add to indicate that this is the 3rd AfD for this article, as indicated on talk page. Could someone please add it? Thanks. Pam  D  07:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I personally don't think the subject meets the notability guidelines as an author. However, as a member of a royal family I'd say she does based on "Carina Axelsson" turning up more than 37,000 articles in a Google News Search. That said, I'd like to hear from editors more familiar with notability guidelines for members of royalty, so I'm going to post info about this AfD on WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @SouthernNights, there are no notability guidelines for members of nobility (whether recognized or legally nonexistent, the latter being the case here since all German noble titles were abolished in 1919); they must meet the same GNG/BIO coverage requirements as anyone else. The fact that her marriage received fleeting attention does not mean that she herself has been the subject of SIGCOV independent of her relationship. If all we can say about her is basic biographical facts and how she's married into a defunct princely family; and if that coverage is almost entirely derived from her wedding, then we should not have a standalone article on her per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even before becoming the partner of the prince (and since marrying him) she had a career as an author. Her books have been reviewed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer here; Fresh Fiction here; and the Young Folks here. There's an in-depth piece on the subjects life and career in the Northern Echo here. Then, of course, there's the many, many sources reporting on her relationship with the prince and their recent marriage. --Kbabej (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:HEY. I've added two magazine cover appearances (German Elle and American Vogue Patterns); three book reviews for the Model Undercover series; added a planned fourth book in that series; sourced out her early life (ethnicity, siblings, etc); added she is friends with the Swedish royal family and is godmother to Princess Athena; added the Royal Rebel series; and restructured the article into two subsections under "Biography and career": 'Personal life' and then 'Career'. I'd love if editors could take a look at the changes and see if that makes any difference in their !votes. Either way, I appreciate the time it would take. Cheers! (PS - tagging the "Delete" !votes above, as some editors don't watch AfD pages on which they've contributed: @JoelleJay, @Ari T. Benchaim, and nominator @DrKay). --Kbabej (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just found a very large list of magazine shoots accompanied with scanned pages, including appearances in Vogue x2; Vogue Italia x3 (where she was shot by Ellen von Unwerth); and another cover, this time for Madame Figaro. I've added those as well. They don't have URLs, obviously, because they're from the early/mid-1990s, but there are photos online of the magazine spreads. --Kbabej (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a number of issues with the many new sources added. 1. The Seattle PI "review" is actually from user "Sahar" on blogcritics.org, so is not RS. 2. StressyMummy is also quite clearly a blog. 3. The Dorset Echo piece has no byline and is sourced to her website, so is not independent. 4. The Young Folks review was written by an 18-year-old volunteer contributing writer before the site had editors, so is also not reliable. 5. Fresh Fiction might be reliable, but it is not clear whether their reviewers are paid professionals, and the site as a whole is extremely, unabashedly promotional for authors. 6. The Royal Correspondent is also a blog (that I managed to completely from wikipedia last Christmas). I would say Axelsson does not meet NAUTHOR criteria, but it's possible her modeling career garnered enough coverage for GNG. Do the Vogue Italia etc. spreads give her (written) SIGCOV, or was she just a model for them? JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the spreads are her modeling without SIGCOV about her attached. --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that she has appeared on the cover of several prominent fashion magazines, I would say she passes criteria 2 of WP:NMODEL.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell she was only on the cover of German Elle and Vogue Patterns, neither of which is particularly prominent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Madame Figaro as well. —Kbabej (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Beyond the tabloid stuff covering her wedding and social life, nothing found for sources. Also searched in French, all I see are amazon listings and the like for her books, teen fiction it appears. Not notable as an author, or in general. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG per source provied by Kbabej and JoelleJay. Princesses of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention, which would have reliable sources. Taung Tan (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2022 (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.