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. ✗plicit 12:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Daemyeong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Bio of a royal consort of the tenth century. The content is all genealogical. The sources in the article are a blog, a one line entry in a database, and an entry in something offline. The ko.wiki article sources look similar. There may be other Korean sources I can’t find or analyse but for the present, notability is clearly not established. A possible outcome would be to redirect to Gyeongjong of Goryeo. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep She was a royal consort. According to the old Korean absolute monarchy political system, royal consorts were high-ranking members of the royal court where each senior prince or princess can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. The consorts of monarch can't be compared with useless first ladies, there is definitely a greater notability as the consort of monarch fills both political and communal functions.

  "The Holy Roman Empire was not remotely comparable to modern Germany but was a far looser confederation: The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west...a decentralised, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units...The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories."

  The king built a palace for her and named "Daemyeong Palace" (대명궁) [1]. Moreover, she was portrayed by Jang Hee-soo in 2009 series Empress Cheonchu. VocalIndia (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’m not sure why you’re quoting something about the Holy Roman Empire. What does that have to do with Korea? Is the Daemyeong palace named after this consort, or was the consort given this name because she lived in that palace? As far as I know there is not a consensus that consorts are default notable in any historical period in any country. To take your own example, we do not have and would not default keep articles on the consorts of each Holy Roman Emperor. For most of them we have basic genealogical information and nothing more, so they’re not notable and would simply be mentioned in the article section about the Emperor’s family. It’s not clear to me why Korea would be an exception to this. Mccapra (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you should not compare Goryeo dynasty with today's Republic Korea. The Holy Roman Empire is the best example! The Korean Queens hold the political power especially Goryeo and Joseon dynasty. Her information is still important though, even if this specific consort has not made much (that we currently are aware of), any consort and any action related to one, of a king over here in Korea in those days was an act of political significance. Btw, As you are a reviewer, I respect you and I don't want to oppose you at Afd. Thanks for your review on my articles. Cheers VocalIndia (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi please go ahead and oppose if you think I’m wrong! There are many articles waiting unreviewed because their notability isn’t clear and the sourcing is poor. By bringing them to AfD we establish what the community view is. At the moment I think that like for any country/period, some consorts and other members of royal families are notable and some aren’t. If all we have is genealogical data then we don’t usually have a stand alone bio article. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she was a Maharani, then I would say that she do not meet WP:NPOL because under the British Raj, the title of Maharani (Queen consort) was more of a ceremonial position in the Princely states of India. In this case, she was a royal consort of major historic kingdom, the rank she held is high, which makes her a high-ranking member of the Royal Court of Goryeo. Wikipedia is accepts articles even that are only one sentence like --- is/was a member of parliament or former MP, because they passes WP:NPOL. So member of royal court also considered. Being a stub article is not a problem. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the spirit of WP:NPOL and many of the same arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. We don't know much about her because she lived a thousand years ago, but notability is not temporary. pburka (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included. in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. VocalIndia (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment, like Mccapra said, Korea royal consort isn't an exception to this and it's true that some of consort of the King may be famous or may be not, but as we not live at that time (Goryeo dynasty), so for know what's her ability / birth and death date / her activity is so hard and in records, there just info about her name, family (even there is some consorts that didn't know who's their families) and general information...Also, not every korean consorts will always came from noble family and some of them who didn't came from noble, they're not passes WP:NPOL as it just uses from they who came from nobles. But, seeing VocalIndia's meaning, it's makes sense that Lady Daemyeong must be keep because it has already portrayed in the TV series Empress Cheonchu that based on the Goryeo's royal families real life and for this woman, she must be passes WP:NPOL because her parents were both the child of Taejo of Goryeo, the Goryeo dynasty's founder. Ningsih ODINN (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I've added some sources like How Goryeo people survived which show her notability and to pass NPOL. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Royal consorts should be (and are) generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Royal consorts are notable, and notability is not temporary.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the "something offline" is the Goryeosa. That's very very old, but it should nevertheless count as a dictionary of national biography. Furius (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2021 (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.