Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Princess Gyeongchang

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject's notability completely relies on her relation to other people. As we all know, notability is not inherited. WP is also not a genealogy site. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This article was also moved out of draft space by the creator over another editor's objection. Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, looks abundantly notable as a royal consort with an entry in the professionally edited Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and another in a recent biographical dictionary of Korean women 한국여성인물사전, excerpted here. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She was emphasizing documented in reliable sources by historians because of her historical significance. A daughter of Duke does not make her notable automatically, but just to reiterate: this woman was the queen consort of the ruler of a major historical kingdom which makes her a high-ranking member of the Royal Court of Goryeo. Goryeo dynasty's political system was absolute monarchy so clearly passes WP:NPOL. I don't see how WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Her position is very high and important enough in the harem hierarchy for her to stay, but her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information. What was she like as a person, did she participate in any known political act, plot, conflict, memorable event? What was her relationship like to other influential people at court, her sympathies, enemies and views? As the article stands now, she appear to be a blank sheat of a person, so it's no wonder the article is nominated; she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. The article really should be developed and expanded with more personal information which confirms her relevance, otherwise a nomination would always appear reasonable even if I don't support it. VocalIndia (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I'd like to see WP:NOTINHERITED retired as an AFD rationale as it's so frequently misapplied. pburka (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how you believe NPOL applies here? The subject doesn't fit any of that criteria. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler would have the power and she would have none, save for perhaps her household. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * She was a high ranking member of the royal court, as VocalIndia explained above. I imagine she had at least as much influence as various historical British Lords who may have never even been introduced at Westminster. pburka (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite a lot of speculation, considering no RS state that. I could just as easily assume she had none. --Kbabej (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You could. That leaves only the strong GNG argument from Nizolan. pburka (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To add, the scholarly sources I linked do in fact state the role she played in the politics of the time so there's no need to speculate about this based on her title. She was seen as an opponent of the king who succeeded her husband, accused of plotting to install her son on the throne, consequently reduced to commoner status and deposed in 1277. Some rather brief details are also available in English in Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions (1963) here (notes 28 and 30). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And to clarify my analogy further, we presume that Lords are notable simply for inheriting a title, even if there's no evidence that they ever voted or debated at Westminster, and we know from historical records that many didn't. I don't think it's a stretch to afford at least the same presumption of notability to royal consorts, whom we know attended court. pburka (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * KEEP In Imperial Ranks, Duke was a nobles and has a high ranks, so i think everyone who came from Duke's family such as Princess Gyeongchang who was Duke's daughter might be came from a nobles family and also, she become a Goryeo King's consort and that was not just a lowly concubine like a palace maid.....so i hope that you wanna think again if you wanna delete Princess Gyeongchang's article...Please don't and never equated the past's ranks and now era's ranks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningsih ODINN (talk • contribs)
 * Keep hum? really? According to old Korean political system, the queen stay at superme highest level. Per above, yes Goryeo dynasty's was absolute monarchy, at that time the King and Queen were equivalent to god and goddess. It means she has authority to rule and to do everything and she can kill anyone she want. She appears as a significant player in numerous histories of the Korean kingdom's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. As with many figures from antiquity, the information we have is limited but it has endured for millenia and so is very WP:LASTING. Taung Tan (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and agree per VocalIndia and Nizolan. Almost all Korean queens have had considerable power; such queens have sometimes been referred as the "power behind the throne". Unlike other queens from other parts of the world, queens of Korea had played major roles in the political affairs and cases of succession to the throne. And thus, it meets NPOL. Also, it has reliable sources mentioned by Nizolan and passes GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Royal consort with perfectly acceptable sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nizolan.  Heart  (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per above, Royal consort. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't we have an article about Rachel Meghan Markle ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand I am convinced by the sources provided by that this person is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article, but  is spot on in saying that her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information [...] she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. When all we have is basically a glorified genealogical entry, we might as well merge or redirect to some related article (such as their title or parent/sibling/spouse/offspring). I would expand it myself using the aforementioned sources, if not for the fact that the machine translation from Korean I got was absolutely atrocious. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (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.