Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Still not convinced but am withdrawing for the time being (non-admin closure) Re5x (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not establish notability of the person, she is the wife of a child of a former monarch and that's about it... Wikipedia isn't a genealogical site or directory. Information about the "widely reported" wedding can already be seen in the husband's article. There doesn't seem to be many sources that describe her individually or as the subject of the piece, independent from the wedding. Also, please check previous deletion request... :) Re5x (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep she is not merely the wife of a child of "a former monarch", she is legally a Princess of Denmark and therefore a member of the reigning Danish Royal Family by marriage. In her own right she is also a member of the German nobility, as a descendant of the House of Hesse. She had a successful career in the fashion industry, working for Diane von Furstenberg. There isn't a lot in the article to establish notability, but perhaps it can be reworked. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could substantiate her notability and the claims you've provide with reliable sources? :) I just don't see this person covered in the media, ignoring mentions of her passing appearances at events. :) And even if these claims were true, there are many family members who are related to dynasties but who live perfectly normal lives as private persons. Thanks. :) --Re5x (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not hard to do a google search and see she is frequently mentioned in the media. A few examples Huffington Post, Huffington Post (again), CBS News, Vogue, Vogue (again), Entorno Inteligente, Hello Magazine, Getty Images, Pop Sugar, Pop Sugar (again), Executive Style, Elle Magazine, Yahoo, E! News, Tatler, Elliman Media, Rant Chic, Real Style Network, Vancouver Sun, Daily Mail, and Observer. She also has her own official website, located here, which covers her philanthropic pursuits. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of those seem to be more about her 'stylishness', etc. But if you insist... The article as it is now though needs some work. --Re5x (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KeepAs per above - this person's status would normally substantiate their own article, IMHO Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the only requirement for a whole article though... What does she do or has she done that makes her relevant? It doesn't have to be big but I think she is more likely a private person that would get a brief mention in genealogical works than someone written about in detail. There are many of these persons that are members of dynasties who live normal lives but they aren't all notable. Thanks :)--Re5x (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - she is a princess. enough said. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who says ALL "princesses" are notable especially one so peripheral (otherwise you'd have an article for every prince or princess in history having an article). Besides she's only a "princess" by marriage (to a child of a former monarch no less...). Look the person up on the Internet and find any information about her... My concerns though have yet to be addressed :( I'd understand if she was close in line to a throne or something but this person does not meet even that... Where do we draw the line? --Re5x (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - she is a princess and (more importantly) a media figure. Yes, being related to more famous monarchs doesn't qualify this article as per WP:Notability_(people), but the title does give her some limited recognition. But the main thing here is her social status and involvement. As recently as October 2015 she was interviewed in this article by The Globe and Mail newspaper. There's an older article (2013) about her work against eating disorders in women from the Daily Mail. Other media sources have been listed on here as well, which I think also serve as enough proof. In conclusion, her role as a social personality makes her notable enough. Naturally, a lot of this involvement of hers should be added into the article. Indy beetle (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, any noteworthy endeavours would make the subject in question more notable if they were properly cited. Also, I'm not saying being a "princess" doesn't bring about attention to the individual, yes, it can draw attention to her and give her a platform in life to be something. But you also have to review some of those "sources" given above as they aren't all necessarily ideal ones to use in a BLP. Top lists, etc. --Re5x (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (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.