Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Frederica of Hanover


 * 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.  

Princess Frederica of Hanover
The result was keep. R udget zŋ 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Insignificant princess with no individual notable information that appears outside of the articles about her parents. Indeed, all of the information essentially is about her parents or about her family, but nothing of note about her as an individual. This is only a genealogical entry, in violation of WP:NOT. Her presence can be noted on the pages of her suitors and her parents and that would be sufficient. Being a princess isn't a unique position and isn't reason for inclusion in Wikipedia solely on that note. Charles 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because she is even less notable for the same argument, minus marriage:


 * Keep - Charles, I think you are now going too far with this mass deletion. I agree with the deletion of the Taylor children and similar, but this person was the daughter of a monarch. That is notable in itself. Being a Princess is of note, especially when a King's daughter. As I said, I think Charles you need to stop now. Deleting articles about the Taylors and Lascelles is fair enough. You now seem to want to delete all royals!--UpDown 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I find this comment to be very, very bizarre. Being the daughter of a monarch may be notable, but it is certainly not a unique circumstance or one individually notable. Therefore the fact that monarchs may have daughters can be acknowledged on the pages of those monarchs. No, I do not want to delete all royals. I am a strong believer in monarchy and a fervent supporter of it. I will nominate for deletion anyone who is not notable. It make it easier to keep track of those who are notable and avoids all of the fluff and nonsense that comes with turning Wikipedia into a genealogical repository for otherwise non-notable princesses. Charles 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you are not acting like a monarchist! But thats immaterial. Being the child of monarch is notable and not that common. She would have recieved widespread media attention at that time. We are indanger of deleting royals from time gone by because we assume they didn't get media attention, because its not on the Internet. If she'd lived now, she would have got media attention like Prince Anne does now and she would have got media attention then. I wonder whether Charles could improve articles and add more references instead of this deleting mania? --UpDown 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you could quite possibly not discuss me and take it to my talk page? One, your first comment offends me. I don't glorify royalty because titles like "princess" make me swoon. Two, "she would have", but none currently exists and nothing can substantiate it. Three, we are not in danger of losing anything that can't be put at their father's article. Four, they don't live now, they're each taking a dirt nap in Europe. Charles 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I have offended you, never my intention. However, I am sure these articles do exist, just because they are not on the Internet doesn't mean they don't exist. Deleting articles like these turns Wikipedia into a 21st-century encyclopedia that ignore people if they don't have constant Internet references. That, in my eyes, is a very dangerous precedent. And the information should not be on her father's article, that should mainly be about him, not who his daughters married.--UpDown 08:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, because who his daughters married is simply not important or notable. Only one married, a baron. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository for non-notable individuals. These princesses are not individually notable and it is not our business to make sure that a princess married a baron and produced a baroness who died after two or three weeks. Seriously though, George V's article has a space for issue. That is the only place these two princesses belong on Wikipedia until something ground-breaking or notable comes to light. Charles 08:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep One - royalty is notable. Two - but they do exist, see here, here and here to start, i'm sure there is more off internet. Three - every deletion creates the danger something wont get replaced for fear of a speedy (aka why bother). This Article would be out of place in the Parent article, being 'off topic'. Four - And your asking for more respect when you make comments like that about a dead person? Please be civil, even about the dead. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  09:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Royalty as a group/class is notable. Individual royals are not always notable. Those books only note genealogical date (who she married) and a room she lived in (kind of like a phonebook). And no, it is not out of place in the parents' article. The articles of notable people discuss their lives and having children is part of that. Also, "dirt nap" is not an uncivil comment, it is about death itself, certainly not about the princesses' characters at that. Passing mention in a book does not render one to be notable. The given biographies I see as well only mention her as company or entourage of other people. Charles 09:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator or Merge relevant information to parents' articles. Information on descendants, however, is not pertinent to such articles and is not found elsewhere in royal articles. Charles 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep DBD 09:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reason? Argument for notability? Charles 10:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't have to argue – I'm perfectly entitled to vote without joining the debate DBD 10:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a simple vote. Charles 10:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. DBD 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep "Insignificant princess" seems a contradiction in terms to me. I daresay the Times and Telegraph etc covered her passing at the time.  The Guardian has a free twenty four hour pass to its archives at the moment, perhaps her obituary could be found there and used as a source to show notability through coverage? Nick mallory 11:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep (changed opinion since as per Monsieurdl below, there are sources to expand the article about Frederica after all) - While even google finds some press coverage, e.g. (each time you delete cookies, it let's you read 2 or 3 of the articles for free), I'm really not sure you need to devote an entire article to each of them when the only possible thing to write is "she was a princess". --Minimaki 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Her father was George V of Hanover, therefore making her a Princess and most certainly a person of note. This article can be expanded as there is more than sufficient primary and secondary source documents of published works. The reasoning for deletion has no basis whatsoever- searching Google web is but one resource, and you cannot say that she cannot be found in any books or it is just genealogical.


 * The Works of Alfred Lord Tennyson, TO PRINCESS FREDERICA ON HER MARRIAGE.
 * The New Hazell Annual and Almanack, 1887:


 * Hanover, Princess Frederlca of. Baroness [Har von Pawel-Rammingen, eldest daughter of the ate King George V of Hanover, was b. 1848, In at Hanover. Langensalza sealed the fate of the kingdom of Hanover, and King George was obliged to take refuge in Austria, the Princess filled the duties of a secretary and amanuensis throughout her father's lifetime, he being blind. She accompanied him on his visit to England in 1876. After the death of the king (in 1878) she married Baron von Pawel-Rammingen, who became a naturalised English subject by an Act of Parliament passed for the purpose. Since her marriage and residence in this country the Princess Frederica of Hanover has obtained general favour by her genial and affable disposition, as well as by the interest she has displayed in benevolent objects, more especially in connection with institutions estabisned for the welfare of the blind.


 * Radziwill, Catherine. The Royal Marriage Market of Europe, 1915:


 * PRINCESS FREDERICA OF HANOVER


 * The Duke of Cumberland has one sister, the accomplished and charming Princess Frederica of Hanover, whose marriage was quite a romance. She was one of the first of the German Royal princesses to wed a commoner. She became betrothed to the Baron de Pawel-Rammingen, a fact which created a terrible scandal when first it became known to her family. Her brother was particularly excited, and it is even probable that she would never have been able to carry her wishes through had it not been for Queen Victoria, who, ever kind in regard to her relatives, came to her help. She supported the Princess, who was a favourite of hers, and allowed her to get married at Windsor, even consenting to grace the ceremony by her presence. Rumour added that the Queen contributed in a most generous manner to the welfare of the Princess Frederica, in order to make up for what the Duke of Cumberland refused to give to his sister, to whom he granted a dowry which was quite insufficient for her to live upon. The Princess Frederica lives for most of the year at Biarritz, where she has built for herself a lovely villa, and where she has made herself most popular. Her marriage has turned out very happily, and she has never had occasion to repent the choice she made, nor to regret the energy she displayed in resisting all opposition to it.

She was directly involved in aiding her father in his rule and she was much involved in community affairs representing the House of Hanover. NOTE: Her father was blind since youth, not due to old age. I rest my case.

Monsieurdl 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Monsieurdl's points. RMHED 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Daughter to a monarch. Dimadick 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per daughter to a current monarch. I'm going to now close this AFD. R udget zŋ 18:44, 9 November 2007 (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.