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 redirect‎ to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga. I know that this closure will please neither those seeking Deletion or those advocating Keep. But I see it as an acceptable resolution that keeps the content of the article available in case any editor wishes to Merge part(s) of it to the target article which is quite short. I couldn't use the target page title proposed in the discussion as that page is a redirect itself, this is the page title of the actual article that exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Part-sourced to "royalpedia", which as I've said before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is a website wholly-owned and controlled by a known sock master and is used by him to promote fantasies. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• That may be so, but how did the sock-puppeteer go back in time to 1768 to get Christoph Heinrich von Ammon to say "Princeſſe de Heſſe-Darmſtadt" and "Douarière d'Antoine Ferdianand Duc de Guaſtalle" in xyr book? That's a bloody good trick. (The article does state this information 3 times in various ways, to make it seem more substantial than it actually is; the original source not providing a biography of this person.) Uncle G (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A family tree published in 1768 does not establish notability. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does rather undermine your point about "fantasies". Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confident that the vast majority of the world will agree with me that Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is not a princess of Brazil and that her mother is not the Princess Imperial of Brazil, as claimed by royalpedia. Brazil has been a republic for over 130 years. DrKay (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • This quite fails to defend the claim that this is a fantasy made up by Royalpedia, unless the person running Royalpedia has (a) a time machine that can go back to 1768; or (b) an ability to consistently on-demand generate wherever I look a whole avalanche of books on the WWW to introduce all of the blackletter German, long "s"s, and the Vivaldi stuff; or (c) a mind control device to get the musicologist and the book scanners to all insert a fantasy person into otherwise real books. Any one of the three would be an amazing achievement. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's obvious to everyone that I was referring to royalpedia's unsuitability as a source. The only fantasy here is the one you've created in your own head about my comments on this article. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt is a historical person and is of interest for an online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very little is actually about her specifically.2601:249:9301:D570:D85F:EAB4:D70C:52BB (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a historical interest. As she lived in the 18th century, her information hard to show online source and can only be found in old historical documents of Italy. She married a ruler of Guastalla, making her the queen or duchess of a dukedom and establishing her as a powerful woman during the era of absolute monarchy. She may passes WP:NPOL. She is also known as the "duchess dowager," and her portrait is collected by a museum. Some aspects of her life story can be found in Pompeo Litta's "Famiglie celebri d'Italia" (Famous Families of Italy), an Italian scholarly chronicle, and page 310 of "House of Hesse - Biographical Lexicon" by Hessian Historical Commission Darmstadt [de]. Finally, there have long enough her biographical information at page 119 of 'Die Selbstzeugnisse (1782 und 1793). Plus extra - details of her significant contributions to the Guastalla church can be found at [1]. In my view, her article should be preserved on Wikipedia. However, I still have no information or idea about Margherita d'Este, as I cannot find any sources in various languages. Thanks. 1.47.128.24 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This user is now blocked for sock puppetry, disruptive editing, incivility, and harassment. DrKay (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the article with newly found citation. 1.47.128.24 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • All the information you've added is from a single footnote in the source. A footnote is a "trivial mention" and does not meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is another refs! Shame on you, uncle! I'm an experienced editor of royalty; you don't need to teach me what it is. We have a history, and I'm also one of your victims. You ever make problem on many royalty articles, especially in Greece and non-English speaking regions, but I agree you have the right to do. You mentioned I added a single footnote from a source. This isn't an ordinary footnote; it has a source and looks fine. If you not happy with above source, sure here is offline References [Friedrich Karl Gullmann, History of the City of Augsburg from its Origin until 1806, Vol. 5, Augsburg 1818, p. 126, 347, 469 f.; Detlev Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, N. F. Vol. I, 2, Frankfurt/Main 1999, Table 249 (The Landgraves of Hessen-Darmstadt on the Brabant side); Peter Rummel, Article Joseph, Landgrave of Hessen in Darmstadt.] Sources for 18th Italian noblewomen are hard to find online; they are only available offline. If you dare, challenge me on Southeast Asian royalty articles (Thailand or Myanmar); I'll surely defeat you since I can access offline sources as well. You can't bully me like you did with other editors. I especially don't want to argue with WP:IDONLTLIKE editors/ problem maker, or administrators who abuse their power. I've saved many royalty articles in the past, and I won't change my vote on this article. Thanks. 1.47.144.97 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • You say, "We have a history". There is no history whatever between your IP and my account. You say, "I'm an experienced editor". There are very few edits from your IP. From these admissions, your over-reaction to my posts here, your topic focus, and the geographical location of your IP range, I deduce that you are a sock puppet of an editor I have previously blocked, most likely Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:150:0:0:0:0:0/46/Special:Contributions/Sir Raymon Adrian Siahaan. DrKay (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every source cited in support of her notability mentions her only in passing. She was the wife of a minor Italian duke and not herself a political figure, so WP:NPOL does not come into play. Zacwill (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was still a consort of a territory that was quite notorious for then. How could she not be notable? YorkDr (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: After recent contributions, a lot of information has been added about her personally with additional citations so it isn’t just about genealogy and therefore does not fit WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Theodora is also a very notable person in history, especially for Guastalla. My other reason : This article should stay on Wikipedia because is that it provides a comprehensive overview of her life. It includes important details about her marriage to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga and her connection to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her impact on Augsburg such as the masked balls. The article seems to be well-researched and mostly cited, which adds credibility to the information presented. Overall, it's a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Princess Theodora's life and historical significance. Also she should meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG after her hosting masked balls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Azarctic (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hosting a few parties does not make the host notable or meet the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. DrKay (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • “The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” Of which she did, so she should be able to get away with that criteria. Azarctic (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • She didn't make unique, prolific or innovative contributions, so she doesn't qualify. I don't think you understand what organizing a masquerade ball entails. It's just a grand-type of costume party. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        I understand that. But a masked ball is still a field of entertainment coming under as an attraction. and as you say “costume party” that is entertainment as well. I understand it isn’t unique or innovative, but it was still a prolific contribution as they were highly productive. Azarctic (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also, I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers. People in her position were public figures. Deletion serves no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above! She was a duchess of a noble court, not a housewife or a likely YouTuber. In her era, criticizing her or one of her family members would certainly result in beheading. That's how significant a duchess was. 2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/1.47.141.30) DrKay (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. Notability is not inherited and nothing indicates this individual was notable in themselves or did anything of significance. The article is part genealogy (much of it unsourced) and part royaltycruft memorial. Name mentions are not WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must argue against this, you stated “much of it is unsourced” but it’s only the last paragraph which is unsourced, and is only a small amount of the Wikipedia page. To add to that, she is a Duchess consort, which makes her very notable. She held very significant events such as masked balls. A lot of it indicates to her being notable. YorkDr (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's have some laundry free analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article should stay on Wikipedia because is that it provides a comprehensive overview of her life. It includes important details about her marriage to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga and her connection to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her impact on Augsburg such as the masked balls. The article seems to be well-researched and mostly cited, which adds credibility to the information presented. Overall, it's a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Princess Theodora's life and historical significance. Azarctic (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This editor has already declared above, under a different user name. DrKay (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I was giving another reason… why would you delete it. Surely this is just misusing your admin power at this point. Azarctic (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to raise my behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but be aware that your own behavior in voting more than once on this and at least one other deletion discussion under different user names will also come under scrutiny. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I voted twice then for two different reasons, and that is allowed isn’t it? Azarctic (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not, if in the first glance it's giving the impression that two different people are voting under two different user names. Since you were not responding to another comment, you should have added your additional reasoning beneath your original one and made it clear that it was you. Keivan.f^Talk 15:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla (her husband) per WP:ATD. To one side, I have to comment on the apparent disproportionate hostility towards articles on royalty and nobility generally - as per Necrothesp above these were the public figures of their time, and they were notable simply by birth, like it or not: that's how the world worked. Ingratis (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not, however, the way that Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopaedia, not a genealogy database. Notability is not gained by mere birth. Notability is gained by documentation, and for a historical figure the fact that people are multiplying the genealogy in the article, sock-puppetteering in this discussion, and arguing about how people should be notable because they were born, got married, and died, tells us a lot about how little argument there is to be made the right way, by pointing at history books. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect. Socks aside, I still don't see a consensus here. But the discussion did garner a late Redirect argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla as a WP:ATD. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the arguments about nobility in this discussion are bogus and counter to basic Project:What Wikipedia is not policy of long standing, where we decided long ago that this was an encyclopaedia, not a dump of every person in every family tree. However, there are some counterarguments that hold water.

  The footnote is not a mere passing mention. It occupies half the page and does support the stuff about the brother's house. That's one source. And there are others. There are history books with this person in. One can source this person's brief career in opera (sic!) from Talbot 2009, pp. 92–94, 101 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTalbot2009 (help) for example, although this is not treated in particular depth with respect to the performer, as of course the book is about the music. This person appears to almost make it over the bar.

  If I had found a third reasonable source, I'd be convinced. But I have only found a flood of genealogies where this person got born, got married, and died (many in blackletter German, which isn't making things easy), and only Talbot picking up on the opera and only as an aside in talking about Vivaldi and how this person's family performed some operas.

  • Talbot, Michael (2006). The Chamber Cantatas of Antonio Vivaldi. Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843832010.
• The sock-puppetry and the antics of Azarctic here and elsewhere do not help to show notability. In fact, they obscure it and are totally counterproductive. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, accusing me as being a sock puppet when you don’t have any idea of the whole story. And yes my vote does matter, like everyone else's. Azarctic (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to her husband's article ("Personal life" section). The article has been nominated for deletion for coming on for a month, and an extensive search for citations has been made. A genealogy from 1768, a footnote in an obscure German book about a couple of balls in a provincial German city, manuscripts archived in the British Museum (all primary sources) and a passing mention in an Italian book about Franciscan credit and "Israelite lender[s]" really doesn't amount to much. I would also say the paragraph about the "Israelite" loans is very strangely worded. It looks like it might be machine translated directly from the Italian, which would account for its poor idiom and could be in breach of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect o husband's article - Royaltycruft, fails GNG and NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (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.