Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise-Marie von Eppinghoven

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. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louise-Marie von Eppinghoven

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No claim of notability, and no substantial discussion of her in references, just genealogical information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - from what I can tell, she ~~appears to be a princess~~ related to Leopold I of Belgium. While people aren't notable through their connection to other people, people who are related to kings tend to be. I don't understand ~~Belgian~~ but she appears to be mentioned in this book: [1]. This museum collection (a source in English) appears to include items that she owned [2]. There might be more in-depth coverage in offline sources. Clovermoss (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Clarification: strikng my !vote because it isn't as well-thought out as the opposes below. Clovermoss (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not WP:INHERITED, even for royalty, which she apparently is not. No evidence for claim she "appears" to be a princess...that title is not automatically applied to children of children with mistresses... No WP:SIGCOV. Fr and Nl-wikis have just passing mention in her father's articles. Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Noted. I've struck that part of my !vote. I assumed she was a princess because she was related but that doesn't seem to be the case. Clovermoss (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. The source mentioned by Clovermoss is in Dutch, and it's just about how the subject was trying to get money from the estate of Carlota of Mexico and from Prince Charles, Count of Flanders to pay off her mortgage. I don't think that's the basis for an article. I note that we don't have articles on her parents so there isn't a realistic merge target.----Pontificalibus 07:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INHERITED applies here. Tried to find some more sources in Dutch, but anything I could find only had passing mentions, none making her close to passing WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being granddaughter of someone notable does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep? she isn't in many online sources but there is a substantial collection of her belongings at the Otago Museum in NZ - dresses, ornaments, gloves, small objects. They are a valuable part of the collection due to knowledge about the aristocracy of the time. So she's notable for that, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily lead to wikipidean notability? TreeReader (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - possibly a royal bastard, maybe not. A large legacy to a major museum could be a reason to include, but that's only one reason. I'd liek to see more than the bare minimum for wannabe royalty. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2020 (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.