Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess Maria Dorothea von Württemberg

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. Sr13 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Duchess Maria Dorothea von Württemberg

Duchess Maria Dorothea von Württemberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

prod was removed with no changes to article. This woman is notable by association. Other than being a wife and mother, she has done nothing notable in her own right. Postcard Cathy 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Due to the times she lived, it's highly possible (even probable) she's done something notable, and we just can't locate that info on the internet -- I'd be more inclined to suggest additional sourcing instead of deletion. Spazure 07:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete and merge the first sentence if desired, as all except the first couple of lines is already in Archduke_Joseph,_Palatine_of_Hungary.Merkinsmum 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep She may be a fairly minor historical figure in the grand scheme of things, but as the article says, she was wife of the Palatine of Hungary and mother to the Queen Consort of Belgium, which is notable as far as Hungarian and Belgian history is concerned. Of course it needs fleshing out, but it's only been around for a day. I might also point out that, as evidenced by the article's talk page, it's doubtful whether the nominator even read the article, the first time it was prod-ed, or the second. Miremare 12:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: And I doubt you read my response. When I prod'd the article, all the article said were the dates of her birth and death, who her spouse was, and the names of her children. IMHO, if that is all that is written, I would prod Pres. Bush, Queen Elizabeth and Prince William. No one mentioned being the wife of the Palatine and it was unclear or unsaid that her daughter became the Queen Consort of Belgium. If it isn't in the article, don't go expecting me to do your research. You mentioned all that info on the talk page. If it had been in the article before I found it, I would not have prod'd it!

I did read your response, but I wonder whether you read mine. I replied on the article's talk page providing this link: [1] which clearly shows that the article said these things at the time of the original prod. In fact, if you look in the article's history you will see that it has said these from the moment it was created. In all seriousness, if you can't be a little more observant with what articles and other users say, you should maybe consider leaving the prod-ing to someone else. Miremare 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep She was a member of two royal families at a time when they still had immense power. During her marriage she would have been the most prominent woman in Hungary. Mowsbury 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The duties she would have had as the wife of the Palatine of Hungary, duties associated with being a princess her whole life, and duties associated with being the Queen Consort of Belgium's mother, while perhaps not being enough for a historian to mention, would certainly be "notable" by any standard. She was the wife of a powerful man and mother of a powerful woman. There is no end to the contributions, big and small, that she most likely made to the history of Hungary. If nothing else, she certainly made a very "notable" contribution to the history of Belgium, and all by just going through childbirth. Obviously that last had a big impact on Belgian history. And that one can't be claimed as just an association, as it was her accomplishment. (Danica 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
• Keep Royals are inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; royalty are obviously notable even if they have no other qualifications. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep, as per Richard Arthur Norton and Ihcoyc. Callelinea 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete/Merge Royals are only notable as being royalty, so that means if they are important they can be put on a page with out royals and not given their own page unless there is notable information needed to elaborate on them that takes up so much room they need their own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [2]
• Keep The First Lady of Hungary at some time is no more non-notable than the First Lady of the United States. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but there's an undercurrent of "she's a woman so she's automatically not notable". --Charlene 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Her notability was through giving birth. Why isn't she just added to her husbands page? They did the same thing. NobutoraTakeda 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Beware, you might get flamed very bad for sexism with such statements. The husband didn't do much very notable besides being a participant in the breeding of royal genes, so why not just add him to his wife's page?--Victor falk 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL You have a strong point. Why not add them to a page about the family as a whole? NobutoraTakeda 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For better or worse royals are notable pretty much by default, the amount which has been written about them over the centuries more or less guarantees that there will be multiple, reliable sources etc., just not necessarily available on the interweb. She certainly existed, further details can always be added later if need be. Possibly tag for expert attention if not adequately cited in a few days. Iain99 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep dukes and dutchesses seem to be kept due to inherent notability by precedent (as opposed to baronets which need some real achievements). Some sources would be nice to support her achievements in producing lots of other royals to marry all over the place. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as a consort of a Palatine she is certainly notable, never mind the rest. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Royals are notable, but needs referencing Taprobanus 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Most royal members are notable, although needs as cited above some more sources to satisfy WP:V--JForget 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung, Taprobanus, JForget, Iain99, Charlene, Callelinea et al. Needs more cites. Bearian 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the subject is obviously notable to anyone with a clue. Burntsauce 17:34, 20 July 2007 (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.