Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sophie 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 delete. See WP:MONARCH for a summary of previous outcomes of similar cases, with which consensus conforms here also.  Sandstein  20:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Princess Sophie of Romania

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No notability except for being her father's daughter, and a possible claimant to the currently non-existing throne of Romania. Most sources currently in the article are self-published by the subject's family. Third-party sources only refer to her among her father's daughters. Her publications (a children's book and some photography albums) are rather unimportant and don't appear to have received any significant coverage outside her family. Desired outcome is merging salvageable info into Michael I of Romania or Romanian royal family. Anonimu (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Photography,  and Romania.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete deposed monarchy cruft. She was born 10 years after the throne was abolished. Even with children of monarchs in power, not every child is for certain notable, but clearly those born after a monarch looses power need actual good sourcing to show notability which we do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Children of monarchs who actually reigned are notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Necrothesp. Atchom (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Proclaiming one's personal opinion to be COMMONSENSE is just dressing up WP:ILIKEIT as if it was a valid argument. Agricolae (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given it's an expansion of the policy WP:IAR, it is! I realise a lot of editors are made uncomfortable by IAR, as they like rules, but the fact remains that it is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's why we have WP:GNG so that we don't have articles about each Pokemon character or self-proclaimed royalty.Anonimu (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now who's resorting to WP:ILIKEIT...? Atchom (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, you?Anonimu (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She is in no way "self-proclaimed royalty"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What are we considering royalty here? Reigning royal houses? If that's the case, she's somewhat self-proclaimed given she was born a decade after the monarchy was abolished. Not sure on what basis anyone would argue children of former monarchs get a free notability pass. AusLondonder (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that her family is still acknowledged as the royal family of Romania by the Romanian government even though there is not currently a monarch. So I don't think you could describe has as "self-proclaimed royalty" in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. There was a proposal some years ago but it was abandoned before becoming law. The eldest daughter of the former King has some notability of her own and gets invited on some semi-official occasions, but that can't be said for her sisters, including the subject of the AfD. Compare the self-proclaimed royalty of the Roma (there are two main "dynasties" currently in Romania), which also get to participate in some semi-official occasions at times.Anonimu (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The only claim made to notability isn't even NOTINHERITED, as her father no longer occupied the supposedly-qualifying circumstance at the time of her birth. The whole COMMONSENSE argument basically amounts to 'they are notable because I want them to be', which lands firmly among the arguments not to use in such discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Having read the discussion above, the argument to keep is pretty clearly non-existent and basically ILIKEIT because she's "ROYAL". Well I'm going to be quite bold here and say I don't think children of former monarchs born after the abolition of the monarchy get a free pass on notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As others have mentioned, no solid evidence of notability, not to mention indivisuals of royal families doesn't mean "significant" unless they have done or existed in a notable way (such as great notable contribution to society), other than that, no solid evidence of notability. --K.G (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I tend to agree with you, . But I'd guess that only a tiny percentage of "individuals of royal families" have made notable contributions to society or similar; and yet loads of them get articles. (I think you've confused Wikipedia-defined "notability", which is close to mere celebrity, with actual noteworthiness.) However, the Romanian monarchy ceased to exist before this person was even born, so she's hardly an individual of a royal family; and she doesn't seem to have achieved (?) celebrity. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikkipedia has a lot of articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria. We do not require people to have done anyrthing per se to get articles though. We just require them to be covered in multiple reliable sources that provide indepth coverage. Whether all the articles we have on members of royal families meet this criteria I am less than sure. We clearly still have some work to weed out deposed royal family cruft. People who are actual reighning morarchs are notable, but exactly which family members are notable beyond that to some extent depends on sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We do need to be able to say more in the article than just who their family members were. We need to be able to say substantive things about the person's own actions. However that is not the same as their actions themselves actually having been anything over than reported. To pick someone almost at random Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll probably has more sources than almost any article, so the article is clearly justified. With Louis XIV we only have articles on three of his six legitimate children, but the other three all died the year they were born. On the other hand we have Marie Thérèse of France (1667–1672) which basically tells us 1-that her mother wanted her to become queen of Spain, 2-what people called her and 3-that she died of consumption. I am really struggling to see how this article is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet GNG, and that should be the end of the discussion. Notability is not inherited, no matter what royalty fans claim. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2022 (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.