This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
I have removed the Proposed deletion-tag which was placed on the article. This was allowed in accordance with the message on the template as well as on the notificiation on my discussion-page. I have stated why in the article-history, but I will give a reason here as well.
This article is to be regarded as an informative list rather than an article as such. It has the same function as does a successionline of, for example, monarch does. Queen consorts is regarded as relevant. They have the position as the first lady as well as the second most important person in the social hierarchy of a state. The states of Lippe were also nations, albeit small. The rulers of Lippe where in fact kings, though they had different titles, and their consorts thereby had the same positions as queens. It is therefore relevant with a list of consorts of Lippe, just as it is relevant with a list of the queen consorts of England. The fact that they do not all have individual articles yet, changes nothing. They are all relevant for such articles, and will therefore hopefully have them in the future. The fact that they do not, in fact makes this article even more important; if they where articles, then all these consorts would be connected with succession-boxes. Now, the information and succession-line of the Lippe -consorts is presented here very practically. The article have sufficient information for its purpose as a list-article. It should not be speedy deleted. If it is to be deleted, then it should be taken up for discussion.--Aciram (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have made an argument for why the women mentioned in this list should each be mentioned in her husband's article or should have an individual article. You have not made an argument for why this list is Wiki-notable. And your arguments are somewhat difficult to understand as worded (e.g. "The rulers of Lippe where in fact kings, though they had different titles...") FactStraight (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hope you can excuse my English. My argument for keeping the list is following: The rulers of Lippe can be compared to kings, although they had the title of Counts of Lippe rather than Kings of Lippe. Thereby, their consorts had a comparable position to queen consorts. Lists of queen consorts are considered relevant because of the position of queen consorts. As the countess consorts of Lippe had the same position in Lippe as, for example, the queen consorts of France had in France, this list is as relevant as the list article of the queen consorts of France. As the majority of the Lippe consorts have no articles, this list is even more important in showing the succession of consorts of Lippe. That is my argument. --Aciram (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Countesses are far less notable than queens, so the notability of a list of countesses is not, ipso facto, as notable as a list of queens: their notability must be established independently. Nor does your rationale distinguish why these countesses should have an article consisting of nothing but a list of woman who held that title rather than being mentioned in their husbands' articles or in articles of their own. List of consorts, even queens or empresses, may still exist on Wikipedia, but their notability as a grouping in an article is dubious: Lists of rulers may be notable because they indicate who held sovereign power over a particular part of the world. Their consorts lack that relevance. FactStraight (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between countesses and queens in this case. This is not ordinary countesses, in which case I would agree. In this case, the countess had the equivalent position of a queen consort. They thereby have the same relevance as does queens consorts. Queen consorts may not have had formall power, but their social position as the second most important person in the social pyramide of society is important. The subject attracts enormous interests from the public as well as historians, and queens are contionuously the subjects of both scientific works as well as novels. The large interest is thereby also a concern to why a succession-list of queens is notable. Wikipedia is after all ment to provide practical, usefull and easily attainable information about relevant subjects which are of interest to the public. By only making the succession of queens attainable through their husbands, we will make the search for this information much more difficult and unpractical. I must add, though, that I do not object in taking the articles future up for a deletion-discussion; I only objected to a speedy-deletion. --Aciram (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
