Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Christina Margarethe of Hesse


 * 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. While I personally have sympathy for the argument to delete, I cannot close this any other way. The existence of substantive coverage is a difficult argument to overcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Princess Christina Margarethe of Hesse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication of independent notability.The subject was born into a deposed family and married into another deposed family. Virtually everything in this article is about other people: her father, her grandparents, her great-grandparents, her half-siblings, her husbands, her children, her grandchildren. She is solely of genealogical interest, and Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability is not inherited. Sources are terrible (blogs, genealogy sites, the Daily Mail) or about other people. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, seeing no reason to single this article out for deletion among the many hundreds Wikipedia maintains on modern persons of royal descent. Rather, reliable sources needed to be substituted for the many sub-standard references included. That has now been done, as there are plenty of reliable sources on this niece of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who is probably the world's best known living royal male, while Christina of Hesse lived into the 21st century, was in the line of succession to the British throne, married the son of a 20th century king, and walked as a family member in the Westminster Abbey procession of the Coronation of Elizabeth II. It is standard in English Wikipedia to include bios on those who belong to families that ruled nations in modern history, so long as reliable sources continue to publish updated information on their lives. This woman meets that criterion. FactStraight (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A difference is that this article contains essentially no information about Christina Margarethe herself. But you are right, Wikipedia is full of articles about irrelevant relatives of former heads of state, most of which should be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Being married to someone who is the son of someone does not make a person notable. Being the daughter of someone who is the sister of someone who is married to someone does not make a person notable. Walking in a procession does not make a person notable. A person is notable if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no such coverage of Christina Margarethe. We have articles about royal children not simply because they are someone's children but because there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Everything there is to be said about Christina Margarethe and found in reliable sources is that she existed, which can be done in the articles about her relatives. Her relatives are all this article talks about anyway. I nominated this article for deletion because I was dumbfounded by how much it goes against WP:Notability, a core policy of Wikipedia. There is other crap out there and keeping this crap because other crap exists is the way to build a crappy encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage in reliable sources, not individual merit or achievement, is the criterion for notability in Wikipedia -- or most modern royalty would have no articles in this encyclopedia. It is the nature of persons of royal descent that significant coverage of their dynastic affiliations and the events of their lives is rooted in their kinship to monarchs, and so long as that coverage occurs in reliable sources, it contributes to their notability. Some may feel that being selected one of the few foreign, non-Commonwealth participants in so extremely rare and widely covered a ceremony of the modern era as a modern European coronation, such as that of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, does not mark that participant as notable. Others may reasonably consider that it does. FactStraight (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Deposed or not, this is still someone who is a recent member of one of the aristocratic families of Europe. That's not NOTINHERITED, that's membership of a group which makes its members implicitly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So it is hereditary implicit notability that is not inherited? —Kusma (t·c) 09:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Danny Dyer (minor UK TV character) has just discovered that he's a descendant of some king or other, maybe 54th generation from Edward II.  His ancestor is clearly notable, the genealogy is proven and sourcable, the UK has some TV going on about it just at the moment.  That's under WP:NOTINHERITED. He has inherited this claim from someone actually notable, but he isn't.
 * Christina Margarethe of Hesse though is more than this. She was a member of the House of Hesse in her own right. Now, the Grand Duchy of Hesse was deposed after WWI and the House lost its power, but that doesn't stop them existing or its members being notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not satisfied at the quality of arguments.
 * Keep There is significant coverage of her in media of the time (e.g. Reuters news agency), including what she studied in London, etc. I will add info and sources later. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referencing improved by . Britishfinance (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per FactStraight. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  21:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#x222F; WBG converse 08:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the information in the article isn't about the individual herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.10.156 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. The press coverage is routine announcements as far as I can see (many of the sources require a subscription to newspapers.com). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I read through the article, I think royalty holds a certain amount of notability and is very well recorded. I find it hard to understand how Princess Christina can fail notability guidelines when there is more than enough around to pass WP:GNG and from what I see the article clearly passes. I don't think WP:BEFORE has been done at all. Govvy (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements to the article by RebeccaGreen. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Royalty is almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep We might think that due to the political changes that occured in the 20th century she is not notable. While that is a politically correct assessment, that is not the definition of wiki-notability. Our definition does not ask if the subject should attract attention, rather it asks if it actually does attracts attention. We are only to record. Not an ideal solution as this this cuts out a lot of very important subjects due to lack of media attention, but we cannot have it both ways. Agathoclea (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2019 (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.