| Revision as of 08:34, 9 November 2007 editCharles (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,769 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:40, 9 November 2007 edit undoUpDown (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers13,350 edits →Princess Frederica of HanoverNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::Frankly, you are not acting like a monarchist! But thats immaterial. Being the child of monarch is notable and not that common. She would have recieved widespread media attention at that time. We are indanger of deleting royals from time gone by because we assume they didn't get media attention, because its not on the Internet. If she'd lived now, she would have got media attention like Prince Anne does now and she would have got media attention then. I wonder whether Charles could improve articles and add more references instead of this deleting mania? --] 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ::Frankly, you are not acting like a monarchist! But thats immaterial. Being the child of monarch is notable and not that common. She would have recieved widespread media attention at that time. We are indanger of deleting royals from time gone by because we assume they didn't get media attention, because its not on the Internet. If she'd lived now, she would have got media attention like Prince Anne does now and she would have got media attention then. I wonder whether Charles could improve articles and add more references instead of this deleting mania? --] 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::I wonder if you could quite possibly not discuss me and take it to my talk page? One, your first comment offends me. I don't glorify royalty because titles like "princess" make me swoon. Two, "she would have", but none currently exists and nothing can substantiate it. Three, we are not in danger of losing anything that can't be put at their father's article. Four, they don't live now, they're each taking a dirt nap in Europe. ] 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | :::I wonder if you could quite possibly not discuss me and take it to my talk page? One, your first comment offends me. I don't glorify royalty because titles like "princess" make me swoon. Two, "she would have", but none currently exists and nothing can substantiate it. Three, we are not in danger of losing anything that can't be put at their father's article. Four, they don't live now, they're each taking a dirt nap in Europe. ] 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I'm sorry if I have offended you, never my intention. However, I am sure these articles do exist, just because they are not on the Internet doesn't mean they don't exist. Deleting articles like these turns Misplaced Pages into a 21st-century encyclopedia that ignore people if they don't have constant Internet references. That, in my eyes, is a very dangerous precedent. And the information should not be on her father's article, that should mainly be about him, not who his daughters married.--] 08:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as nominator or '''Merge''' relevant information to parents' articles. Information on descendants, however, is not pertinent to such articles and is not found elsewhere in royal articles. ] 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as nominator or '''Merge''' relevant information to parents' articles. Information on descendants, however, is not pertinent to such articles and is not found elsewhere in royal articles. ] 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:40, 9 November 2007
Princess Frederica of Hanover
- Princess Frederica of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Insignificant princess with no individual notable information that appears outside of the articles about her parents. Indeed, all of the information essentially is about her parents or about her family, but nothing of note about her as an individual. This is only a genealogical entry, in violation of WP:NOT. Her presence can be noted on the pages of her suitors and her parents and that would be sufficient. Being a princess isn't a unique position and isn't reason for inclusion in Misplaced Pages solely on that note. Charles 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because she is even less notable for the same argument, minus marriage:
- Keep - Charles, I think you are now going too far with this mass deletion. I agree with the deletion of the Taylor children and similar, but this person was the daughter of a monarch. That is notable in itself. Being a Princess is of note, especially when a King's daughter. As I said, I think Charles you need to stop now. Deleting articles about the Taylors and Lascelles is fair enough. You now seem to want to delete all royals!--UpDown 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I find this comment to be very, very bizarre. Being the daughter of a monarch may be notable, but it is certainly not a unique circumstance or one individually notable. Therefore the fact that monarchs may have daughters can be acknowledged on the pages of those monarchs. No, I do not want to delete all royals. I am a strong believer in monarchy and a fervent supporter of it. I will nominate for deletion anyone who is not notable. It make it easier to keep track of those who are notable and avoids all of the fluff and nonsense that comes with turning Misplaced Pages into a genealogical repository for otherwise non-notable princesses. Charles 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, you are not acting like a monarchist! But thats immaterial. Being the child of monarch is notable and not that common. She would have recieved widespread media attention at that time. We are indanger of deleting royals from time gone by because we assume they didn't get media attention, because its not on the Internet. If she'd lived now, she would have got media attention like Prince Anne does now and she would have got media attention then. I wonder whether Charles could improve articles and add more references instead of this deleting mania? --UpDown 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if you could quite possibly not discuss me and take it to my talk page? One, your first comment offends me. I don't glorify royalty because titles like "princess" make me swoon. Two, "she would have", but none currently exists and nothing can substantiate it. Three, we are not in danger of losing anything that can't be put at their father's article. Four, they don't live now, they're each taking a dirt nap in Europe. Charles 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I have offended you, never my intention. However, I am sure these articles do exist, just because they are not on the Internet doesn't mean they don't exist. Deleting articles like these turns Misplaced Pages into a 21st-century encyclopedia that ignore people if they don't have constant Internet references. That, in my eyes, is a very dangerous precedent. And the information should not be on her father's article, that should mainly be about him, not who his daughters married.--UpDown 08:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if you could quite possibly not discuss me and take it to my talk page? One, your first comment offends me. I don't glorify royalty because titles like "princess" make me swoon. Two, "she would have", but none currently exists and nothing can substantiate it. Three, we are not in danger of losing anything that can't be put at their father's article. Four, they don't live now, they're each taking a dirt nap in Europe. Charles 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator or Merge relevant information to parents' articles. Information on descendants, however, is not pertinent to such articles and is not found elsewhere in royal articles. Charles 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)