Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helie of Burgundy


 * 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. Article has been improved during the discussion, and later comments are all to keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Helie of Burgundy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It was speedily deleted once, recreated, but kept after the second CSD tag was placed. There's very little notability here, and the fact that she was the daughter of X it doesn't automatically make her notable. I've waited on this for quite a while, but the article hasn't changed since the speedy, and I can't find much on her at all. PeterSymonds | talk  22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. This kind of article could be useful to someone doing history research. I wonder if it can be merged somewhere?  As it is there's no notability, not to mention no sources.Renee (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database.  Powers T 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete recreated content. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; this article is in need of cleanup more than deletion -- if it were tidy-looking no one would give this a second glance. We do keep near genealogical articles where notability is conferred by hereditary, as in royal houses, which is the case here. As for sources, I didn't find any in a quick search, but I also didn't have any of the paper sources to hand that one would really need to do this properly; the sources at Duke_of_Burgundy would probably be helpful. Perhaps the article can be referred to the royalty wikiproject for work... If with more thorough work nothing is found, then perhaps deletion is in order. -- phoebe / (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have access to sources to check whether this should stay or go, and don't question the nominator's right to bring this to AfD, but I must say that this is is one of the most ridiculous WP:CSD speedy deletion cases I have seen. Surely being remembered after 900 years is more of an indication of importance/significance than making a recording that scraped into the Billboard hot 100 (or whatever it's called) a few weeks ago? When administrators do things like this I can't accept that it's no big deal. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is anyone mentioned in a 900-year-old document notable? Or just nobility?  Powers T 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that that makes anyone (nobility or not) automatically notable, which I why I haven't said "keep" here, but I would say that it's certainly enough of an indication of importance/significance to avoid speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per phoebe. Edward321 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —Agricolae (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've rewritten from a better source. The deciding factor, for me, is that she went to Outremer with her husband on his expedition to claim Tripoli. I think going on Crusade is enough to confer notability in this case. Choess (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's the mother of the wife of two English nobles and an ancestor of Elinor of Castile, the wife of Edward I, King of England, and therefore of the royal line descended from him. Bob (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that anyone who's life history, dates and descent has been seen as being worth preserving for nearly a thousand years seems notable.  phoebe's comments seem to indicate that there are additional sources that can be added, which is a good enough indication for me.  --Clay Collier (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (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.