Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Bonifacia

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 merge to Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). bd2412 T 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bonifacia

(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:

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.
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]

Weak Keep There are quite a few sources on her. The event itself - the birth and subsequent death (of Elizabeth herself, as well as her mother) had ramifications on Polish succession. I'm more looking at this through the prism of an event than a person.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). The death of the child and the regnant mother in rapid succession does appear to have given rise to something of a legitimacy crisis for the Polish crown for which there are a number of sources and which could be the subject of its own article (see also Jogaila_of_Lithuania#Early_actions) but merging this into the section on her mother would be another approach that provides useful context. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jadwiga of Poland#Pregnancy and death (1399). Not opposed to deletion. "Elizabeth died at exactly three weeks old" and WP:NOTINHERIT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (OSE, but...) - In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge we have several editors arguing notability for a fetus who is expected to be 5th in line for the throne at birth, rising to 3rd upon death of Queen and her grandfather - while that AFD may indeed close out as a delete, the child will definitely have an article as an infant (as Princess Charlotte of Cambridge did - actually while she was an embryo). Here we are discussing an infant who has significant coverage (for the period? Super abundant), and who had a significant impact on the succession of the Polish throne and was also involved in the veneration of the mother. We should try to aim for similar standards for historical and current figures - if at all the bar should be lower for an historic figure.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge as suggested. Normally, I would have said that a child who died aged 3 weeks was clearly NN. In this case, I can see an argument that her birth was significant. I am surprised that we can get such a long article on her, but we have. PLain deletion would certainly not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article and available through a quick internet search would indicate notability, through her position as heir presumptive to the Polish crown. I would oppose merging because many aspects of this article are not applicable or too relevant to her mother's article (e.g. the prophecy, who she was named after), and because her mother's article is fairly long. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:24, 17 September 2017 (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.