Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwika Maria Rzewuska


 * 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. A consensus of a Weak Keep is still a Keep. The editors with this opinion argue that sourcing, in the article and mentioned here, is sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ludwika Maria Rzewuska

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

Simply does not meet either WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. She gets some brief mentions, and was awarded a minor award, but there is simply not enough as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected to Rzewuski family, but that is being reverted. There is one seemingly in-depth source, from Klio, but beyond that, nothing.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no mention about any award in this article. Why do not considere chapter in the academic book  Migration – Kommunikation – Transfer written by two Polish scholars as an in-depth source? You also did not check sources from "Further reading" sections. You could also find additional information in Dzieje rodu Chodkiewiczów by Leszek Podhorodecki. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You should check sources using the name "Ludwika Chodkiewiczowa", not Ludwika Maria Rzewuska. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, there is one good source already cited in the article (although given its frankly misleading title, Instructions of Ludwika Maria Chodkiewicz née Rzewuski regarding children, I'm not surprised that other editors glanced over and missed it) and there appears to be some coverage on Google Scholar under the Chodkiewiczowa surname; perhaps not quite enough to meet GNG in itself, but it is suggestive of the existence of additional offline coverage. signed,Rosguill talk 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility,  and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per One|5969, or at the very least, Draftify or restore and protect the redirect that keeps being removed. Sorry, but being notable and being worthy as a standalone in main space are 2 different things. These types of bullet point stubs fail MOS, not to mention the policies I mentioned in the AfD for Teresa Karolina Rzewuska by the same article creator.  When articles fail PAGs, they should either be deleted or draftified, redirected or merged, and definitely not kept in main space as it only invites more of the same which we definitely do not want or need. We certainly need to avoid a trend of including bios about non-notable women who marry notable men, or who are the daughters or wives of say...various monarchial regimes, or dictators, etc.  This particular article was created in 2005 – 17 years ago – and little to nothing has changed over its history of redirects, which have created time sinks for overtaxed NPP reviewers.  The article has -0- page views in the past 30 days and is not in high demand by readers.  Atsme  💬 📧 21:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability =/ being high demand by readers. She is notable herself, not due to her husband. There is a new academic article dedicated to her. Why we do not trust academic scholars? I am not the creator of this article. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend that you seek guidance from one of the experienced mentors at WP:Teahouse. They can answer all your questions.  Atsme 💬 📧 00:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep As per above, she was discussed by historians and scholars. It is still my philosophy that eighteenth-century nobles who are documented by one reliable source are notable. She is notable than Articles for deletion/Teresa Karolina Rzewuska. Taung Tan (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- It is clear that here instructions concerning children are regarded by scholars as important. Women authors of the 18th century are uncommon, suggesting significance.  The present article has little detail, but might usefully be exanded by saying more about what she wrote.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. seems like a decent and reliable source. And here's another one: . While they are reviews of her work, they also discuss her at not inconsiderable lenght. I think that's enough to meet NBIO/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep She might be notable because she was a writer. But the article should say more about her writing, to make clear that she is a notable writer.--Aciram (talk) 12:57, 16 November 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.