Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of royal mistresses of Bohemia

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal mistresses of Bohemia

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

Also nominating similar related article:

There was never any such position as a "royal mistress of Bohemia", so it's not surprising that the table is half-empty, half-inaccurate. Concubines are not mistresses, and the article would hardly meet notability criteria more than the List of Bohemian queens' favourite dishes. Not everything "royal" deserves an article or a list. One can try to put up with articles such as List of consorts of Nevers, but there has to be a limit somewhere. I repeat, this was not an office. It had no "term started date" and no "term ended date". Being a mistress meant many different things to many different couples. Some were one-night adventures that resulted in a child, some were lifetime partners and influential confidantes. Some were not sexual, and some were purely sexual. It makes no sense to put all of these women into the same basket and treat them as office-holders. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article is only random bunch of facts and errors. For example Agnes of Kuenring and Palcerik was same person, Božena (Křesinová) was second wife, not mistress, Katharina Schratt was only platonic friend, Philip Lang was hardly mistress, because he was man. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information! --Yopie (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jesus, what a mess! Half of the "facts" aren't verifiable and seem like guesswork but they are the basis on which this has been created. Much of this seems based on rumour or conjecture. Though the subjects are all long dead, we still don't publish gossip. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any way to include List of royal mistresses of Hungary in this discussion? Half the table is identical to this one, and the other half is equally bad. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for the reference of the closing admin, my "delete" opinion applies equally to that list also; delete both. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both – fails core policies including WP:V. C 679 07:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete both - per the nom and Stalwart111 Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 7 October 2014 (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.