Talk:Anna Liszt

Untitled

I fail to see why this needs to be in an encyclopedia? --Joy [shallot] 12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because I for one, and I'm sure many others, are interested in her life.M A Mason 16:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And this article tells you something about her life? There are three locations and dates and approximately seven to eight other generic keywords talked about here. This tells us right about nothing useful about her life. --Joy [shallot] 15:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It will when I've done more research on her and added more.M A Mason 16:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notable because she is Franz Liszt's mother. (But maybe the article should make that clearer). Megapixie 02:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That fact was already clear - it's not really clear why that fact makes her biography worthy of being documented in the Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot]

Perhaps this article and her husband's should be merged into the article on Franz Liszt. They appear to be notable only because they are his parents, and I for one would rather have two redirects than two stub articles. They can always be unredirected if something notable is found on them.Caerwine 05:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Well, well, well, what do we have here: an article about Liszt's mother. Does it tell me all sorts of fascinating things about this notable person. No, not really. Does it even tell me why she was notable in her own right? No, not really. (Note to Megapixie: Nobody is Wiki-notable simply because of being somebody's mother. Nobody.)

It seems objections were raised back in 2005(!) about this article. The creator promised back then to do more research and add more material. We're still waiting, 5 years on. The case for notability has failed magnificently to be established, so out this goes. In the spirit of comradeship, I'm happy to keep all the material about her, but in the relevant place(s) in her son's article. A better case for MERGING I have never seen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced your 2 merge templates with a mergeto and a mergefrom templates. I'm all for the merge, should make a nice side track in the Franz article. Palosirkka (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. This article is unnecessary, uninformative and wholly useless. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Support this merge. After almost a year of this proposal, and no dissenters, I reckon that there is consensus for this merge. I don't know enough about this topic to merge it myself, so I will ask the nom. Quasi human | Talk 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]