Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Bonifacia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.151.10.165 (talk) at 16:46, 11 September 2017 (→‎Elizabeth Bonifacia: k or m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Elizabeth Bonifacia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, trivial article about a person with no historical importance.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to abstain from voting having been the one to decline the speedy deletion tag. The notability of the person is definitely a bit shady, although not enough to warrant an undiscussed deletion. I'll put forth some of my findings here for others to judge:
  1. Ref 1 from the article - translated and archived - Here, the wording of the section titled "What was the impact of the birth and death of Boniface and the death of the Queen on the situation of Jagiello?" and some of the content under it appears to point to relevance of the death of Elizabeth. Here the death of Elizabeth is given some importance as destabilizing her father's rule to an extent as he lost his only heir.
  2. Secondly, the Elizabeth's horoscope has also had a couple of mentions: Here the horoscope is said to be drawn by a controversial astrologer of the time (which is arguably not a worthy mention) and here the horoscope is called the first "real horoscope" on Polish lands (again, the source is a blog so that weakens its credibility).
I got most of the information above from the sources themselves. There may be more, or perhaps not enough. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]