Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick of the Palatinate


 * 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   redirect to Frederick, Elector Palatine. NW ( Talk ) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Frederick of the Palatinate

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This royal family member became one - 1 - day old. It is in no way necessary to cover the topic in a separate article - he should be mentioned by name and life duration in the articles of: his father, mother and possibly siblings. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most people searching for "Frederick of the Palatinate" will probably be looking for the man that started the Thirty Years' War, not his one-day-old grandson. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Myself, I found this page when searching for Frederick II, Elector Palatine. I made the disambiguation page Frederick, Elector Palatine. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - He should maybe be mentioned (I'm sure his short life had an impact on his father) but there's no way this deserves its own article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Die young, stay pretty, and keep your name out of the history books.  Should be mentioned in Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Royal genealogy cruft, of which there is definitely too much on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Panyd; certianly all royals should be mentioned on WP, but not all deserve their own article. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I certainly agree this article isn't notable I am not sure Royalty equals notability but by the same standered youth does not remove it.  We should be wary about saying the subject is not notable because he was only around for a day.  If that were taken to be the case where would we draw the line? Stupidstudent (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Should be mentioned in articles of his parents but doesn't deserve separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2009 (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.