Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantal, Princess of Hanover (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal, Princess of Hanover

[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)

Not notable, deleted before. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion An article about this person was deleted back in 2013 after a discussion, but it has since been re-created without discussion. An admin declined a call for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article has been significantly improved since the earlier version. The main grounds for deletion remains, viz. that the Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist when it was annexed by Prussia back in 1866. A pretender to the throne might be notable, but simply being married to one is a very weak claim to notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Some of the references look like trivial gossip. PatGallacher (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete marriage into a family that has not held any actual power in over a century is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fully agree with nominator's rationale. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just removed the deprecated sources and blogs (BLP violations), now all that's left is...tabloids covering her ex-husband. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well sourced article. Reading the article I simply fail to see why this person should't be notable. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:22, 3 August 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.