Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen


 * 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   no consensus. I am re-closing this with my original result of no consensus. I was asked to reconsider, and I have. There are canvassed comments here, but even separating those out, the consensus is not clear. Although those favouring deletion cite notability, those favouring retention indicate a belief that the passing references are sufficient. Overall, the consensus is not clear and unambiguous - the deletion arguments have a greater overall weight, but it is impossible to discern the community consensus on this topic. I recommend that this return to AfD in due course, ideally following some talkpage discussion. Otherwise, this decision can be reviewed in the usual place Fritzpoll (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Closing admin please note, this AfD was closed for about an hour and 20 minutes in good faith, see Administrators noticeboard/Incidents following potential canvassing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO for lack of substantial coverage; the only sources cited are genealogy websites, which we are not intended to be a copy of. Contested PROD.  Sandstein  05:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. McMarcoP (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Caponer (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen is a member of two German royal houses and two of her sons are in the Line of succession to the Bavarian throne. She was also an elder sister of Frederick William, Prince of Hohenzollern, the current Head of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Keep in mind that her article in its current form is a stub and is in the correct format to grow into a Good article.
 * This does not address the issue of the notability requirements of WP:BIO. That guideline does not provide that nobility are automatically notable. They need substantial coverage in reliable sources like anyone else. Besides, Germany has been a republic since circa 1918, so any titles of nobility or places in a line of succession seem to be about as relevant as my claim to the Imperial Chinese throne.  Sandstein   12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability is not inherited, even for a soi-disant scion of the aristocracy. WP:GNG specifically requires significant, substantial, multiple sources discussing the subject in detail, and a mere geneaological listing doesn't qualify.  One of her sons is demonstrably notable, but that doesn't make her notable.  Being a stub doesn't disqualify an article; an article that has no chance of growing beyond a stub is what doesn't qualify.  There's no evidence that this can.    RGTraynor  13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that notability is not inherited (wrong cite by the way: it's WP:NRVE, not WP:NOT.) However royalty IS inherited, and it's inherently notable. There has been repeated consensus on that, both in Wikipedia and in real life. A better question is: as she was from the royal line of a republican state, was she therefore non-noteable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayBarker (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google Books search turns up plenty of interesting references and coverage, including a section in "Confronting the Nazi Past: New Debates on Modern German History‎" by Michael Burleigh, which claims that the "biggest society event during the war was the marriage of Princess Maria-Adelgunde of Hohenzollern to Prince Konstantin of Bavaria." Sounds notable to me! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as there does not appear to be significant coverage of her and the article is effectively a genealogical entry. There are passing mentions in Google books to her first marriage but I just don’t see enough evidence of her being notable enough for an article. - dwc lr (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as royal genealogy cruft. In my view there is too many of these articles on obscure minor royals, as a rule of thumb I am prepared to treat the children and grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable but not further.  When I first saw the article I assumed she might be fairly close to the German Imperial family, but it seems she is not, she is only the grand-niece of a king of Romania and the great-great-granddaughter of a king of Portugal.  As she was never recognised as a Princess by any sovereign state at any point during her lifetime I question whether we should keep this title even if we do keep the article.  The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens look like a fairly obscure cadet branch, not the main Hohenzollern family.  As there is no longer a Bavarian throne the hypothetical line of succession is a fairly obscure matter. PatGallacher (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as I feel that this article can be improved upon rather than deleted. She is a male-line descendant of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, married into the Royal Family of Bavaria, and was a member of multiple female chivalric orders. --Justin.A.Wilcox (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a sockpuppet or something? Its just that the User:Caponer account has been editing the Justin.A.Wilcox userpage, both look like they are from West Virginia, just looks a bit odd. - dwc lr (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're both contributors to West Virginia-related content as we are from the same community. For full disclosure, we are also domestic partners. --Caponer (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am always happy to see more information about people related to Royalty. Google test is also positive. Happy138 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, in concurrence with Pastor Theo that there are several interesting English and German language GoogleBook references that establish the article meets WP:N. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse as a canvassed !vote; the Keep strike-out is mine. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it seem to be a good article and most royal person articles seems to be genealogical informations. Someday it might be improved when other info pop up. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 1. The person existed. The lack of certain categories of references does not imply that the do not exist, they exist, but have not been included (yet). 2. The mark that distinguished the person for a personal article is clear.  Her wedding was not only a public occasion of great interest in Nazi-Germany (quantitatively) but also an important fact (qualitatively).  There existed a complex relationship between Germany's noble classes - who had traditionally carried German civilisation, culture, politics and the military - in the past centuries and were represenatatives of the old order and the new classes of socialists and workers who propagated a radical egalitarian philosophy.  This love/hate relationship is illustrated by the marriage (which should be expanded upon).  Another (more famous exemple) is the attempt to murder Hitler by the nobleman von Stauffenberg.  Both are result of this dialectic proces. 3. Much lesser articles have been retained, whereby this article, in comparison, is very qualitative.  Conclusion. The article should be expanded, not deleted. --Stijn Calle (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the keep voters have been attracted by talk page messages from the article's author. (I also received one.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would encourage the closing admin to discount the five "keep" comments above, which are the result of canvassing by (see also his talk page). The AfD was intermittently closed because of this disruption and has been reopened as a result of the discussion at WP:ANI.   Sandstein   21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would encourage the closing admin to discount the previous comment. As one of the five "keep" comments above, I am more than capable of making up my own mind, thank you, and my advocacy for retaining this article is based solely on my determining the notability of the princess, as per WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. If I felt the subject did not meet these requirements, I would have called for its deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please count again – yours is not among the comments I referred to.  Sandstein   05:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the misunderstanding was caused by the German comma before the relative clause. Hans Adler 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes a "canvassed editor" different from, ahem, uncanvassed? Are we witnessing birth of a new breed, - wikishudras? wikilepers? NVO (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: We have innumerable members of the British peerage, beerage and baronetage, all with thousands of rules justifying their worthiness of a place on Wikipedia. If this woman existed (I assume that she did) then she has as much right to be here as any other holder of an hereditary or marital title - or do Europeans count for less than the Brits here? For the record, nobody has canvassed me to be here, I found my way all by myself. Giano (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. Any British nobility articles that also fail WP:BIO should likewise be nominated for deletion.  Sandstein   05:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Sandstein, that is not the case, all holders of British titles get to have a page, you cam't have on lwaw for one race and one for another. Anyway, I think she sounds fascinating - all those husbands and a title too - she sounds very notable and not just a little familiar too. Giano (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am noticing that the members of the British Royal Family have their articles not because they are members of the Royal Family but because they receive extensive and in-depth press coverage, in the UK and abroad. I think (and hope) that each single member of the Royal Family's notability claims have been evaluated properly. The references and the sourcing about the subject of this article are in discussion, not her "birthright" to be on Wikipedia. McMarcoP (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nobody has found any indication that she is actually notable herself. The German Wikipedia mentions her as a daughter, in her father's article. She appears in numerous genealogies. And apparently she gave a big party once. That's it. All these things run under "trivial coverage". She died in 2006, so you would expect the German Google News archive to have at least an obituary or something. Nothing. Only a more recent article that mentions her as the mother of her son. By the way, formally she never carried a title. "Prinzessin von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen" was her name, which she inherited in exactly the same way that other people inherit the name Schmidt, Jones or Gorbachev/Gorbachyova. (She could have made money by adopting rich people who like such names. This kind of thing does happen.) Hans Adler 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I was canvassed by the way. Royal geneaology is notable in itself and of interest to many. Gerard von Hebel 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebel (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as i think she did have a public role. However, this entire group of articles is written in a manner that i can only describe as "in-universe" -- as if these people were anything more than courtesy nobility or royalty. The British peerage is not a courtesy peerage, but a legitimate one, still officially recognized. Did she at any point   actually hold a legally recognized title?    DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What tells you she had a public role? She is known for being her father's daughter and her son's mother and for having given a party once. She died 2006, but neither Google nor the Google News archive found an obituary. (I tried en and de.) Hans Adler 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep per Pastor Theo. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - It is not a good sign for notability when a person's Wikipedia article is their top Google hit. Searching in Google.de to find German-language sources gives the same result: her de.wiki article is the top hit for 'Maria Adelgunde Sigmaringen'. The article has almost nothing about concrete events in this woman's life; we don't know if she lived in Germany during her two marriages or somewhere else. There are no reliable sources from which the article could be expanded. Since she died only in 2006 wouldn't she have reached the archives of some newspaper in all that time? (Her wedding in 1942 is mentioned as a big social event in at least two books available at books.google.com). Her son the race-car driver is clearly notable, though keeping him in Wikipedia under the name Prince Leopold of Bavaria (b. 1943) may be a stretch, given how tenuous are the royal claims of this family, as related by DGG in his 'in-universe' remark. Per User:PatGallacher above the title 'Princess' should be reconsidered if the article is kept. (She was never recognized as a princess by any sovereign state). EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to learn more from how the German wiki handled this, as noted already they have no separate article on Maria Adelgunde, but they do mention her in the article on her father, Friedrich von Hohenzollern. If consensus decides that a separate article on Maria Adelgunde is not justified, merging anything important to her father's article might be sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) What do you mean by her German Wikipedia article? She doesn't have one. de:Adelgunde von Bayern has a similar name (without "Maria", which appears in her article elsewhere), but is a different person. She is mentioned in precisely 4 articles in the German Wikipedia: her father's, her husband's, her son's, and a genealogy. (Her second and third husbands were "commoners", by the way, if that makes any difference for some people here.) Hans Adler 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is not a good sign for notability when a person's Wikipedia article is their top Google hit."? Many people have the wiki article as the top google hit, even John Major and Tony Blair. Gimmetrow 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. '''We only know her year of death because thePeerage.com has it from the following source: Ruijzendaal, Patricia "re: Austrian Royalty." E-mail message from unknown author e-mail at The Netherlands. 19 November 2008.''' This makes the article a potential BLP article and the year and fact of her death uncertain. I will qualify the information. Hans Adler 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — PS: Actually, there is another site that also gives the date and place of death, but like thepeerage.com it's self-published, it looks less reliable, and it doesn't indicate sources. Hans Adler 05:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Some people seem not aware that since the German nobility was abolished in 1919, she was officially a commoner throughout her whole life and that the in the article prefixed title princess was merely a part of her surname. Phoe   talk   11:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The right to enlist people in the nobility is a personal right of the sovereign. It is called fons honorem.  No other person is allowed to.  By abolishing the monarchy, thus the monarch who embodied the sovereign, the sole person who was capable to disband nobility was eliminated.  Thus rendering any change in the nobility impossible, untill a new sovereign sits on the throne.  Republican government cannot undo monarchical privilege. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A pretty strange political theory. Can you produce a shred of evidence to support this view? PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm yes this may be the case in France or Italy ... however after the First World War the former German Empire ceased to exist as country (remember it was a fusion of several independent states) and its former citizens, nobles as well as commoners, became now citizens of the new established Weimar Republic, responsible to its constitution, which allowed and recognized no nobility. After the Second World War the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany continued this, so even if magazines and newspapers like to use the former titles, German nobles officially exist not anymore. Phoe   talk   17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The German Realm (as it was still called) abolished the nobility and royalty in 1919. Remember that the Princes of HS were not nobility but royalty. Republican government can undo monarchial priviledge. There is no problem with that. I added a comment further down however stating that some European monarchies kept and keep recognizing the defunct titles in a diplomatic sense and also for the purposses of "annexing" formerly titled people into their own nobility. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the good Pastor, and my belief that this meets WP:GNG. Even as dated as this is, there still appears to be numerous sources to verify this.  As an encyclopedic endeavor, historical perspective is important, and I believe this fully meets the criteria that we have established. — Ched :  ?  11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * addendum regarding the WP:WAX argument, it is a well reasoned essay, but an essay nonetheless. I believe that any "Royalty" inherently meets our view of GNG, even if it is not explicitly stated in any particular policy or guideline.  We're here to produce an encyclopedia, and as such, I believe that we must endeavor to include figureheads of our past, regardless of their particular function, country, or origin.  Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Prince Konstantin of Bavaria. As Wendy Testaburger said on Paris Hilton, "Yes, but what does she do ?!". It appears that she was a mere housewife with a title. As contemporary witnesses said of her wedding (which is the most public event of her life attested in RS), "a belated vision of pre-1914 Europe" "an extraordinary feudal occasion" . Good riddance to ancien regime, not enough to make a bio. NVO (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. the second link is the same that Pastor Theo used in favor of keeping the article. But a fact of being mentioned, especially for a single event, indicates quite the contrary. In fact, had it not been 1942, the wedding will go unnoticed among dozens of other high-society gatherings. NVO (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Inclined to keep as I think higher nobility implies notability. On the other hand, most of the current article seems to be about her marriage to Prince Konstantin of Bavaria. The content could have stayed there until someone was ready to write more about the rest of her life. Gimmetrow 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We hardly know anything about this woman because she was simply a non-notable housewife. She was born with a funny name as the daughter of a notable man. She had a borderline noteworthy party when she married another notable man, with whom she then had two children, one of which is also notable. So far it was a good start. Looked as if she might become notable.
 * After 6 years the first marriage ended in a divorce. Then she was married to one Werner Hess for 12 years and had 2 more children during this time. The children's last name is Hess, so one could guess that she became Maria Adelgunde Hess. But that's far from clear and we simply don't know.
 * Finally she married one Hans Huber in Switzerland. Was she now Maria Adelgunde Huber? No idea. No futher children or divorces. She died 33 years later.
 * If you look at our sources for all this, you will see that everything from her second divorce onwards is known to us only because the guy in New Zealand who is writing thePeerage.com felt a need to fill in the details for this woman. He somehow managed to obtain an email from a woman in the Netherlands who apparently knew the article subject or some of her relatives. If this email also contained further riveting information, such as the fact that she regularly went to concerts in Baden-Baden during her second marriage, or that she temporarily became a vegetarian in the early 1990s, or that she was the president of a Bridge club in Frauenfeld during her last years (examples made up for illustration) – then unfortunately these interesting details have not been published.
 * No, I am lying. The guy from New Zealand is not our only source. There is also one Paul Theroff who managed to find the third husband's date of birth and therefore presumably didn't copy the other source. Both sources are self-published, of course.
 * I don't understand why people insist on imagining a colourful life just because somebody is born with a colourful name. Hans Adler 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Recuse as a canvassed !vote, but I want to add that I still do not think there is much point in proceeding with this canvassing-tainted discussion. I think any closure here (of any kind) would, correctly, be susceptible to relisting at DRV because there would be reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the outcome following the procedural irregularities. At an untainted discussion, I would say that the "delete" !votes here are unconstructive and do not comply with WP:BEFORE.  As a member of a European royal house, this lady's name is a plausible search term, so the closest any AfD should come to deletion is "redirect".  Another possibility would be "merge" to her husband's name—but whichever way it goes, the outcome should be some variant of "keep".  Nevertheless, I repeat that the closing admin should discount my remark on the basis of canvassing.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the father, the first husband, or the notable son? Or to a genealogy? (The German Wikipedia has one, I have no idea if we do this kind of thing here.) We don't need redirects for searching, especially for people who are clearly not notable. Searching works very well without that. As to WP:BEFORE, there is a long list there, and if you feel that any of these points was ignored you need to mention it specifically rather than point at the haystack and say: "You lost a sharp object there which in my opinion can be considered to be the equivalent of a needle." One reason for taking things to AfD is to remind article creators that we have a notability guideline and that it is supposed to be applied.
 * For comparison, for the German Wikipedia I recently wrote the biography of the apothecary who invented the use of pigeons in aerial photography. I know about as much about his wife as about this woman here. Did I create an article for her? No, because she was completely and utterly nonnotable, just like this one. I may be wrong about this particular case, having missed a large biographical article about her in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (I doubt it), but editors are supposed to find sources establishing notability before creating an article. Not pushing memes like "all cousins twice removed of American presidents are inherently notable". Hans Adler 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've some respect for the German Wikipedia, and I'm a fairly frequent visitor because I translate Wikipedia articles from German to English. But de.wikipedia's a different place and it has different rules and guidelines.  What works for them doesn't work for us, and vice versa, and decisions on de.wiki do not have precedential force here. WP:BEFORE concerns alternatives to deletion which should be exhausted before the AfD process is invoked.  In this case the alternatives that were not exhausted were merges and redirects. The only reason to bring anything to AfD, ever, is because the nominator thinks the article should be a redlink on Wikipedia.  See WP:BEFORE and WP:SK ground 1, for example.  "Reminding article creators" is certainly not a reason to bring something here. Nobody's pushing memes about American presidents.  There seems to be a split between those who have a Republican view of the nobility and those who do not, but I do not see any bad-faith arguments of the kind you mention. My position is that notability is not relevant to this matter.  Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content; it is rarely appropriate to cut content that is verifiable from the English Wikipedia.  Notability just establishes whether the subject has its own article or the content is moved elsewhere.  See WP:PRESERVE. You can therefore make a case that she should not have her own article, but because her name is a plausible search term, she should have at minimum a redirect to a place where she is mentioned.  And redirect is technically a "keep" outcome, so my position is that the AfD closer should close as "keep" with a recommendation that whether to redirect or merge—and if so, to what—should be discussed on the article's talk page at our leisure.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the nominator, but I am convinced that this name should be a redlink, not a redirect. This woman can be mentioned somewhere in one or more articles (I believe she already is), but there is no reason for a redirect. Therefore your BEFORE argument doesn't apply, either.
 * "Nobody's pushing memes about American presidents." But some people here are pushing memes about remote relatives of other people who are notable but much less important than an American president. I never said anything about bad faith, and I don't believe anyone is arguing in bad faith. And you are simply wrong about notability. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's exactly what you need to write a reasonable article; certainly not an accident, since writing reasonable articles is what we are here for. The thing that is lacking here or at least extremely dubious is "significant coverage", which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". An entry in the telephone directory doesn't count. For people with a funny name, an entry in the book of people with funny names doesn't count unless it goes into detail about the person. Here we just have lists, lists, lists. Being a relative of someone notable doesn't count, and a big wedding party is no reason for an encyclopedia article. You could argue that many people will be interested to read about her, but if we allow such arguments Wikipedia will be flooded with articles on porn stars. The one thing that has been missing in this entire AfD is a single convincing argument what could possibly make her notable. Hans Adler 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to explain the reasons for a merge or redirect to you. If I told you again, I'd just be repeating myself, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly there is only one reason for merging: That people might search for her. Now, every reasonable search term for her is going to lead to the articles mentioning her and very little else, whether you use Google or our search box. And how many people are going to enter the exact search string "Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen"? Are you going to spam Wikipeida with all variants of that name? I don't see any advantage from such a redirect. On the other hand I have experienced in the past what can happen with a "merge" vote. An admin who believes that from a technical AfD perspective merge=keep closes as keep, or as "keep, should be merged" or something like that. And then the entire AfD discussion is repeated on the article talk page, only this time it's about redirecting or not. Sometimes this risk is a necessary evil. This time it's an unnecessary evil. Hans Adler 23:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one reason, and though I realise you find it unlikely, I do not. An editor would follow the established naming pattern while searching. A second reason is the family trees which contain links (see Prince Ferfried of Hohenzollern for an example of the kind of thing I mean). A third reason is that redirects tend to prevent the material from being re-created.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me there. Just that the status of the titles wasn't as dead as they were depicted here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although the German nobility was abolished in 1919, there were some monarchies of Europe that kept recognising German (and other) titles afterwards in a diplomatic sense and for reasons of "annexing" formerly titled people into their own nobility. In the Netherlands that was last done in 1998.Gerard von Hebel 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebel (talk • contribs)
 * So you mean if instead of leading what seems to have been an inconspicuous life first in south-west Germany, then in Switzerland, she had gone to the Netherlands, then she might have acquired a real title there, which would then have given her the chance to go to yet some other country where she might theoretically have performed some function that might have made her notable? I think there are easier ways to get into the newspapers if you feel you absolutely must have a Wikipedia article. Hans Adler 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough coverage for us to write a reasonable length article here fully verified and without original research which I believe is the purpose of the notability guideline. I also cannot see how it could be described as just a directory entry. There is also precedent of royal articles being kept before without having significant coverage in reliable sources such as this AFD on a 1 day old baby which was overwhelmingly endorsed at Deletion Review. I could however understand a merge to an article on this particular sub-branch of the family being reasonable, as long as the sourced information on her titles and honours is not lost as this is good encyclopedic information. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you name one detail available about this woman from reliable sources that you would put into such a reasonable length article, so we all have an idea of what you are talking about? As far as the coverage of her by third parties (including self-published websites) goes, the article seems to be complete. If you have further sources that discuss her – especially sources that discuss her in a non-trivial way – then it's a bit unfair of you to keep the for yourself. Hans Adler 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a reasonable length article now imo, not every article should have to be featured article length. There is no information in the article, as it is at the moment, that I think we should lose by deletion as long as it is sourced or sourceable and nowhere have I said that I have more sources about this person. Davewild (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an encyclopedia article, that's an Almanach de Gotha entry. If that's the kind of article you want to write, may I suggest that you take it to WikiGotha? This is incredibly ridiculous and pathetic. Hans Adler 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." and this information is an element of either an almanac or encyclopedia that I certainly would include here. As I said above however I am open to a merge to a relevant new article that preserves the information from the article. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hans Adler pointed out this German Wikipedia article earlier. Is creating that type of article not the way forward for non notable individuals who belong to notable families, as all the information in the nominated article could easily be included in one on the family. - dwc lr (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as House of Hohenzollern?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking Members of the House of Hohenzollern or something along those lines. - dwc lr (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. --Tonyjeff (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC) She has a relevant biography and her article is important in a greater group of articles. --Tonyjeff (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm surprised and somewhat puzzled that the editors who are up in arms over Princess Maria Adelgunde's article aren't up in arms over articles such as Louisa Cavendish-Bentinck and Frances Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne. These are two women who have done nothing but be the grandmothers of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon but their article's existence on Wikipedia has not yet come into question. It seems on Wikipedia, British, and more generally Protestant, nobility seem to have articles that meet with less scrutiny than those who are Roman Catholic or hail from royal and noble houses on the Continent. If these editors are going to hold articles like Princess Maria Adelgunde's to such standards, why aren't they holding all articles to these stringent standards for "notability"? More examples: Anne Caroline Salisbury, Lady William Cavendish-Bentinck, Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Gilman, Albert Windsor, and Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden. Lord Culloden's article is allowed to exist while Princess Luisa of Savoy is redirected to her father's article Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont. The double standard favoring British aristocracy is appalling. Just a thought. I mean...Emma Tallulah Behn...really? --Caponer (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More examples: Patrick Chichester, 8th Marquess of Donegall, David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles, Alexander Lascelles, Elizabeth Ramsay of Mar... notability: white, Protestant, well-bred, well-educated.... --Caponer (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:WAX. If these articles are similarly unsourced, they should be deleted as well, and you are welcome to nominate them at AfD. The reason why I nominated only this article for deletion was that it appeared on a bot search results page that I watchlist.  Sandstein   06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this AfD is the first time that I agree with Sandstein about anything. Are you sure you want to give us a list of articles that have managed to stay under the radar until now? Not everybody who believes that non-notable nobility should be deleted is sufficiently obsessed with them to seek them out actively. But when you provide convenient pointers... Hans Adler 09:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point, though. If we do craft an exhaustive list of these articles for AfD, editors will come out of the woodworks in droves to defend and save the articles for British peerage, other Protestant nobility, and commoner great-great-great-infinity-grandmothers of British royals when they won't come out to support the keeping of Catholic Continental royal and nobility articles. Therefore, the articles of Catholic Continentals (CCs) will disappear without being assisted to be made better whereas the articles for British nobodies will be salvaged. If Princess Maria Adelgunde had been the Queen's Protestant second cousin, the discussion on this page would have taken a completely different turn. There continues to exist an acceptable bias against articles for CCs. That is why when an article is to be deleted, I contact all editors who have previously edited related articles. Apparently that is canvassing, of which I was not aware of. I only contacted stakeholders who have edited other Hohenzollern-related content in this case. --Caponer (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can’t believe you are effectively accusing people of being bigots who would vote to save articles on people from the same religion, nationally or whatever as themselves. I gladly have an article on this woman if she was notable but I cannot for the life of me see how this article will be expanded what is there to say about her where are the mentions of her in the press or books, other than brief mentions of her wedding. - dwc lr (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I can't believe is that we have to put up with all this crap about religion. This tends to be a complete non-issue where this non-notable woman lived (I come from the same region), with traditionally Protestants and Catholics being about equal parts of the population and more recently most people not being religious at all anyway. It took me several a long time to understand that people apparently get their certainty that she was Catholic from her first name. And the idea that she might ever have been confronted with the question of conversion after hundreds of her relatives were killed (presumably by a nuclear bomb) and she gets an offer for the UK throne is utterly ridiculous.
 * If someone is not notable at all it must be possible to get rid of their article even if they belong to a poor disadvantaged minority group such as Catholic Hohenzollerns. Hans Adler 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Brits with a title are exempt from WP:N. NVO (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, keep or at the very least merge with a redirect to the husband, as explained above by multiple people. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nasty, I am not aware of any evidence of a Protestant bias in Wikipedia. See WP:OSE, "other stuff exists" is generally not a good argument on Wikipedia. I have had a quick look at most of the articles listed earlier and quite possibly some of them should be deleted. However in some cases they are e.g. a genuine Countess, or in the official line of succession to a genuine monarchy (British or Norwegian) or a fairly close relative to a genuine monarch. The crucial issue here, which some people seem to have missed, is that anyone in Italy and Germany (which has a Protestant majority) who may still use a title is only doing so unofficially since these countries are now republics. Contrary to a previous argument, a republic does have a "fount of honour", the president. This is nothing to do with Protestant bias, there are still some Catholic monarchies: Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein. PatGallacher (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is getting nasty, (I make no comment on the religious aspect), but it's true; if they are British it's "lets bow down and worship them" and if they are European it's "let's chop their heads off and delete them." Ironically, for those who admire blue blood, because of unwritten laws governing these archaic matters, the blood in the veins of a European aristo is generaly bluer than those of the British aristo - Wikipedia needs to get its act together here and have a level playing pitch. Giano (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you produce a shred of evidence in support of these serious allegations? WP:PROVEIT PatGallacher (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is the serious allegation - that European aristocracy are generally beter bred or that Wikipedia prefers the British aristocracy over European? Giano (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't it funny that I got canvassed as well...? Oh well, a hundred other users probably copped it as well. What do you we should do about the canvasser? Rory (reply on my page!) (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was merely messaging editors who have edited other Hohenzollern-related content on Wikipedia so that they could have a say in the article's fate. And I prefer to be referred to by my username and not "the canvasser." --Caponer (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just gone to the trouble of having a look at all the British people listed earlier by Caponer. Here is my thoughts on them:

Louisa Cavendish-Bentick, Anne Caroline Salisbury: I accept that there is legitimate doubt about their notability and I have therefore put a notability flag on their articles,

Lady William Cavendish-Bentick: there already is a notability flag on this article,

Albert Windsor: an AFD discussion a while ago decided to turn this into a redirect, somebody changed this, it had now been changed back to a redirect,

Alexander Lascelles: an AFD discussion in 2006 on this article resulted in no consensus, it might be worth putting this up for a 2nd nomination.

However I would say some of these articles are notable for these reasons:

Frances Bowes-Lyon: a genuine Countess,

Patrick Chichester: a genuine Marquess,

Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Gilman, Xan Windsor: all within the official line of succession to the British throne, as stated on the official British monarchy website,

Emma Tallulah Behn: might have a funny name, but the granddaughter of a Norwegian king and fairly high up the line of succession to the Norwegian throne. PatGallacher (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I put a notability flag on Elizabeth Ramsay of Mar as well. PatGallacher (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth Ramsay of Mar is in line to the British throne. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that mention of her ranking in the line of succession to the British throne has been removed in the grounds that she was a devout Roman Catholic - therefore it is surprising that such a devout Catholic, especially of her generation, could bring herself to be divorced twice! Giano (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Catholics are removed from the succession to the British Trone anyway. Divorced or otherwise. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the difference between nobles and / or royals from Britain as opposed to Italy, Germany and France is that the three countries mentioned last are Republics now, while Britain retains its monarchy. I don't think that should make the mention of royals (former royals) from these places an anathema on Wikipedia. Royal geneaology is notable in itself. We don't have to endorse concepts like "fons honorem" for that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, royal genealogy is notable, although there is currently no article under this name. Telephone directory is also notable. But that doesn't imply that New York telephone directory is notable, let alone every individual entry in it. Neither was Maria Hess (her name at the time) necessarily notable in 1961 just because if 870 of her relatives including the slightly younger UK Queen and the even younger Prince Charles had died a sudden death, she would have been offered a throne. Hans Adler 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The members of former reigning houses are not an anathema on Wikipedia. It’s ridiculous to have to an article on every single royal of these formerly reigning houses. If they are notable then there is no problem in them having an article, but surely not every single royal is notable. This princess was not head of a royal house, not a member of a reigning royal family how is this princess remotely notable? The subject of royal genealogy may be notable, not everyone covered by it is though. - dwc lr (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - of course - RJB-nl (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the pastor. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't agree more with what PatGallacher previously said. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Obscur royalty, even though she is granddaughter of a king, that doesn't make her worthy of an article. Way too many of these articles exist, all done similarly, with the same template. Merge this article into her father's or husband's would be the perfect solution, information would not be lost, etc. What annoys me the most with these so-called articles is the "titles" section. Germany is a republic, right? I can understand the importance of titles for a reigning monarch, but not for members of former noble/royal houses. EDT95 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't find the alleged protestant monarchical bias argument particularly convincing and although this isn't paper and it's useful for people interested in the history of European royalty to see information about descendants of such an important historical family as the Hohenzollens, we can't have pointless pages for every one of thousands of offshoots. I do think to qualify for articles, aristocrats need to be either currently notable for some reason, high-ranking (eg currently the main royal/sub-royal title holder or a close relative of such) or close family members within currently monarchical states. I agree that we are not simply building a genealogical database. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Merge somewhere) - fails WP:BIO; we are not a genealogical database. Simple as that, really. I'm aware there are many other similar articles like this, and they should be deleted as well. Robofish (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2009 (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.