Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Gabriela of Orléans-Braganza

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. Sandstein 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Gabriela of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable relative of an airplane crash victim. Despite claims to the contrary[1], there's no mention of her at either of the external pages listed as sources[2][3]. DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Amended DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't read Portugese, I'm pretty confident from using Google translate that the external link given in the article does indeed list her as the daughter of Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza, just as stated in the article [4]. I stand by my "claims to the contrary", and think that DrKiernan has failed to actually read the website in question before commenting on what information it does or does not contain. (Note, this is in no way an argument that she is notable or the page should be kept. I have no opinion on that as I haven't done any searches to determine whether she is notable, and don't plan to do any. I'm just standing by my assertion that the article wasn't eligible for deletion by BLPPROD). Calathan (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not given in the article. It would be helpful in future if you add the sources you find independently rather than leaving the article bereft of them. And, no, I didn't read pages not linked from the article, though I did do a web search. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the front page of a website is given as an external link, it is generally safe to assume that the intent is that content somewhere on that site is relevant to the article, not that the front page itself has the relevant content. It was trivial to find a page on the website that did have content relevant to the article (it took me only about 1 minute even without being able to read Portuguese). And yes, that is still the same website given as an external link even if you have to click twice to get to a page that mentions the article subject. Calathan (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, I was unable to find it, so I don't think it is that simple. DrKiernan (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is not given on the frontpage, the frontpage should not be given as a reference. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she would be relevant if Brazil was still a monarchy, but now it isn't and there is no other claim to fame for her according to the article. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of countries do not govern under a monarchy but still maintain a royal family who retain significant notability. I do believe the threshold for notability is whether or not a country operates as a monarchy -- in fact there are very few true monarchies left in the world. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Brazil is not one of them. The whole imperial family was expelled from the country by the first republican government, they returned only after WWII. The members of the royal family hardly ever appear in public, much less in the press, do not own any large estates (all imperial property was nationalized), and do not have any political influence. The monarchy was voted down in 1993 with only 13 % of the vote in a nationwide referendum. They are very much restricted to their own "walled garden." Even the celebrity tabloids ignore them almost completely. The subject studies PR at Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro so that, I suppose, she could make a little money in advertising later. Her father, the prince, is a civil engineer. Just ordinary people... Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. WP maintains articles on almost all royal houses, whether currently ruling or not. Her father is second in line to be pretender of the Brazilian throne. She is a princess, and member of a royal house, with her father being second in line. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source for those assertions, other than wikipedia. DrKiernan (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::*I'm guessing you haven't looked then? A quick google search reveals this, which shows her ancestry quite plainly. --Cagepanes (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Of course, I've looked, as I said above, but I did not find. Notability is not inherited: sources that say only that she is the daughter of someone else are insufficient to prove notability. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::Yet she has a title, is royal, is from a royal house, and is a Princess. Those make her notable as WP covers those extensively. Would you also suggest deleting Prince Harry's article? By the same vein, he is only notable for being part of a royal house. --Cagepanes (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Harry is independently notable. Maria Gabriela is not. See prior discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination), etc. We don't keep articles of people who are only known because of their parentage or one event. DrKiernan (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there can't be any doubt that she's the daughter of Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza, and sister of one of the victims of AF 447. Besides that, I can't find any in-depth coverage in independent sources that would establish notability. According to her article in the Portuguese Wikipedia she hasn't finished her university studies yet. Anyway, she claims to be a princess, and is considered one in monarchist circles, but legally there's no nobility in Brazil, noble titles were abolished after Brazil became a republic in 1889. Kraxler (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's two issues here: (b) Is she a member of a royal house and (b) does that make her notable? (a) The Almanach de Gotha, normally considered authoritative, lists her (see http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id8.html) within the Orleans-Braganza family and is generally consistent with the Wikipedia article (except that the Almanach spells Iolanda as "Yolanda"). (b) Contrary to what DrKiernan says above, WP:NOTINHERITED has a longstanding carveout for members of royal houses. This young lady's case is a fairly extreme test case for the carveout - a long-extinguished throne, a very junior member - but the rule stands and there's no compelling reason to WP:IGNOREALLRULES here. In my view we would be better served by reconsidering the policy rather than arguing about this case. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exception at WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a rule: that page is an essay. The guideline is at WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BLPRELATED. The policy is at WP:BLP1E. DrKiernan (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but certain aspects of essays, including this point, have generally been accepted at AfD. That specific essay guideline has been cited in the past at AfDs and there's quite a number of articles on members of royal houses that really should be reconsidered if we ignore those precedents. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring OTHERSTUFF for the time being, please clarify whether the AfDs where the essay was quoted were on subjects related to reigning royal houses with a claim (whatever flimsy) to succession, or whether they were on subjects related to pretenders to long-gone thrones and crowns. Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DrKiernan's points are all on-topic. Individual doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Brazil is no longer a monarchy so her relevance is very much debatable. In addition she has no established notability in her own right. --Re5x (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her father, Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza. Members of non-reigning royal families may be notable if there are sufficent reliable sources discussing them, for example, if they are well known as socialites. But sources about Princess Maria Gabriela appear to be few, or at least few have been provided and those that have been provided say almost nothing about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - per Metropolitan90 and above users. Brazil is no longer a monarchy and there are very little references provided. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.