Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania


 * 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   redirect to Michael I of Romania. No real notability apart from her father. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Princess Maria of Romania

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, deposed monarchy cruft, contested prod.

This person is not and never has been a real princess, as she was born after Romania became a republic. The article content is mostly trivia. The general precedent is that we do not treat alleged princesses in deposed royal families as inherently notable, see Articles for deletion/Chantal, Princess of Hanover and Articles for deletion/Monika Princess of Hanover. PatGallacher (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge - actually, as I posted on the nominator's page, the past outcomes for these cases are not easy to categorize, and I am grateful that this nomination will give the community a chance to discuss the matter more fully. About five years ago, Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen ended in "no consensus". I'd like to get a new consensus to merge such articles to their parent's article, whomever is the heir apparent or the one pretender to the throne who is most recongnized by reliable sources.  A deletion would remove blue links and some information valuable to our readership.  Keeping such trivia clutters our files and risks BLP violations and fights of competing pretenders and favourites (No, Princess Lucinda, Countess of Rhedy is the fourth in line to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick and her cousin Prince Oscar, Duke of Oldenburg, is fifth in line to the throne!!!).  As HRH Jimbo, Prince of Wales, has stated, "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken...." (see Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair).  Jimbo was referring to peers of Great Britain, not disposed monarchs, but I think an analogy is appropriate.  I am not advocating keeping such stubs, however.  A merger is a nice compromise in the cases of hereditary ("fake") princelings; this AfD would make an excellent precedent, every lawyer's dream of an easy case, so to do. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo speaketh in agreement. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "Clutters our files" means here. (We have over 660,000 BLPs so a few dozen for deposed royals won't make much difference.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC).


 * That is a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, see WP:NOHARM. Also, there is more here than a few dozen articles of doubtful notability, there is a degree of monarchist bias by treating members of deposed royal families as having the same notability as if they had not been deposed. PatGallacher (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, I think this person might have received some coverage from reliable sources . Valoem   talk   contrib  20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - rename if necessary Firstly everyone is a real princess (or prince - or frog), that is a given.  Secondly there appears to be Wikipedia notability.  Thirdly there is the option to merge to a sensible target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Merge per WP:NOTINHERITED: her only claim to notability appears to be that she's the youngest daughter of a deposed monarch. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, nothing to merge here, article had virtually no meaningful sourced content anyway. Obviously non-notable (the only thing that's sourced about her is that "Order" she got recently, which isn't a "national honour" as the article presented it, but a private family-internal matter. Article says nothing about her having ever done anything in particular, let alone anything that would make her notable. Biographic trivia content was entirely unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply I am not strongly opposed to this being reduced to a redirect to her father, ex-king Michael of Romania. However in the previous cases listed by Bearia I think there was a fairly consistent outcome, we do treat princesses etc. in actually reigning royal families as notable, but supposed princesses in deposed royal families are not notable.  The Hohenzollern Princess Maria mentioned was a slightly contentious borderline case, but with her the articles defenders were arguing that there were some factors which made her slightly more notable than most deposed monarchy cruft. PatGallacher (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see the arguments for deleting, but I think there is level of notability.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Please, especially if you vote keep, provide an extensive argumentation. So far there are more keep votes but the delete argumentation is stronger.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as passes GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  22:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ... as per which pieces of significant, detailed and non-trivial biographical coverage, in which multiple reliable sources exactly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge Many of the pages here on historical nobility and royalty include a Family or Marriages and Children section which is used to comprehensively list the children of the noble or royal individual.  Those who are notable in their own right get their pages linked there, others are just a name in a list.  I see no reason why this should be any different.  The limited data about this individual that I see on the page could easily be included in her parent's page. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no chance at passing WP:BIO with the sources now cited in the article, which amount to a passing mention in a local American newspaper and nothing else recognizable as a reliable source. Inherent notability as an office-holder is out of the question, because the office attributed to her does not exist, given that Romania is no longer a monarchy.  Sandstein   19:06, 30 May 2014 (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.