Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dowagers


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

List of dowagers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scope of article (listing every widow) is too huge for a sensible article. Widows should be categorized or broken up into smaller lists not listed all on one page. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wel; no problem, we can make different lists, any suggestion, please?--Carolus (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a ridiculous list: only Belgium is incomplete and incorrect, and such a list for the Kingdom of Belgium would, in order to be complete, contain thousands of names. Besides, Carolus doesn't dispose of the right sources to make up such a list. Paul Brussel (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wel, you can find this ridiculous. But it is good to have a list of these persons, it is usefull. Please: show me a dynamic list that is complete? Only persons that have an article, should be included, that limit the number of people. Sources are not relevant if the article prove that the person became dowager. --Carolus (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is that good to have such a list, especially since it is incomplete and wrong? Why do you add persons then that have no articles? Why do you add some one from Mexico under Belgium? Why do you include wrong years? Paul Brussel (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What wrong years? Of course a list is always imcomplete.--Carolus (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete before it metastasizes from being small and woefully incomplete to being large and completely unmanageable. An indiscriminate list of widowed nobility would be useless in either state.  -- Finngall   talk  18:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but what is your opinion then of Queen dowager?? The same i guess? How much dowagers are there in history? That list is useless too in the same logic you just made.--Carolus (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Queens dowager would be more manageable. A relatively complete list could actually be achievable--probably too long to include in the main article, but as an linked "List of" page it should be fine.  But does that logic extend to a list of centuries' worth of dowager empresses/queens/princesses/grand duchesses/duchesses/marchionesses/countesses/viscountesses/baronesses/whatever else I may have missed?  In every jurisdiction?  Especially given that a large number of them (I dare say most) would not be considered notable enough in their own right to merit an article here?  I don't think so.  -- Finngall   talk  22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, there is no interests to list every dowager of anyone holding an aristocratic title in the world. Royal dowagers make sense to list, but not other aristocrats. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete — Brilliantly put by Finngall: "Delete before it metastasizes from being small and woefully incomplete to being large and completely unmanageable." Carrite (talk) 16:56, 13 August 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.