Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt: Part-sourced to "royalpedia", which as I've said before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is a website wholly-owned and controlled by a known sock master and is used by him to promote fantasies.  DrKay ( talk ) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  DrKay ( talk ) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That may be so, but how did the sock-puppeteer go back in time to 1768 to get Christoph Heinrich von Ammon to say "Princeſſe de Heſſe-Darmſtadt" and "Douarière d'Antoine Ferdianand Duc de Guaſtalle" in xyr book?   That's a bloody good trick.   (The article does state this information 3 times in various ways, to make it seem more substantial than it actually is; the original source not providing a biography of this person.)  Uncle G ( talk ) 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A family tree published in 1768 does not establish notability.  DrKay ( talk ) 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it does rather undermine your point about "fantasies".  Uncle G ( talk ) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confident that the vast majority of the world will agree with me that Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is not a princess of Brazil and that her mother is not the Princess Imperial of Brazil, as claimed by royalpedia.  Brazil has been a republic for over 130 years.  DrKay ( talk ) 17:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This quite fails to defend the claim that this is a fantasy made up by Royalpedia, unless the person running Royalpedia has  (a) a time machine that can go back to 1768; or  (b) an ability to consistently on-demand generate wherever I look a whole avalanche of books on the WWW to introduce all of the blackletter German, long "s"s, and the Vivaldi stuff; or  (c) a mind control device to get the musicologist and the book scanners to all insert a fantasy person into otherwise real books.   Any one of the three would be an amazing achievement.  Uncle G ( talk ) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's obvious to everyone that I was referring to royalpedia's unsuitability as a source.  The only fantasy here is the one you've created in your own head about my comments on this article.  DrKay ( talk ) 15:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt is a historical person and is of interest for an online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is.  -- 92.76.102.53 ( talk ) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very little is actually about her specifically.  2601:249:9301:D570:D85F:EAB4:D70C:52BB ( talk ) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a historical interest.  As she lived in the 18th century, her information hard to show online source and can only be found in old historical documents of Italy.  She married a ruler of Guastalla, making her the queen or duchess of a dukedom and establishing her as a powerful woman during the era of absolute monarchy.  She may passes WP:NPOL .  She is also known as the "duchess dowager," and her portrait is collected by a museum.  Some aspects of her life story can be found in Pompeo Litta's " Famiglie celebri d'Italia " (Famous Families of Italy), an Italian scholarly chronicle, and page 310 of " House of Hesse - Biographical Lexicon " by Hessian Historical Commission Darmstadt [ de ] .  Finally, there have long enough her biographical information at page 119 of 'Die Selbstzeugnisse (1782 und 1793) .  Plus extra - details of her significant contributions to the Guastalla church can be found at [1] .  In my view, her article should be preserved on Wikipedia.  However, I still have no information or idea about Margherita d'Este , as I cannot find any sources in various languages.  Thanks.  1.47.128.24 ( talk ) 21:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This user is now blocked for sock puppetry, disruptive editing, incivility, and harassment.  DrKay ( talk ) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article with newly found citation.  1.47.128.24 ( talk ) 23:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] All the information you've added is from a single footnote in the source.  A footnote is a "trivial mention" and does not meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV .  DrKay ( talk ) 09:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is another refs!  Shame on you, uncle!  I'm an experienced editor of royalty; you don't need to teach me what it is.  We have a history, and I'm also one of your victims.  You ever make problem on many royalty articles, especially in Greece and non-English speaking regions, but I agree you have the right to do.  You mentioned I added a single footnote from a source.  This isn't an ordinary footnote; it has a source and looks fine.  If you not happy with above source, sure here is offline References [Friedrich Karl Gullmann, History of the City of Augsburg from its Origin until 1806, Vol. 5, Augsburg 1818, p. 126, 347, 469 f.; Detlev Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, N. F. Vol. I, 2, Frankfurt/Main 1999, Table 249 (The Landgraves of Hessen-Darmstadt on the Brabant side); Peter Rummel, Article Joseph, Landgrave of Hessen in Darmstadt.] Sources for 18th Italian noblewomen are hard to find online; they are only available offline.  If you dare, challenge me on Southeast Asian royalty articles (Thailand or Myanmar); I'll surely defeat you since I can access offline sources as well.  You can't bully me like you did with other editors.  I especially don't want to argue with WP:IDONLTLIKE editors/ problem maker, or administrators who abuse their power.  I've saved many royalty articles in the past, and I won't change my vote on this article.  Thanks.  1.47.144.97 ( talk ) 10:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] You say, "We have a history".  There is no history whatever between your IP and my account.  You say, "I'm an experienced editor".  There are very few edits from your IP.  From these admissions, your over-reaction to my posts here, your topic focus, and the geographical location of your IP range, I deduce that you are a sock puppet of an editor I have previously blocked, most likely Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:150:0:0:0:0:0/46 / Special:Contributions/Sir Raymon Adrian Siahaan .  DrKay ( talk ) 11:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Every source cited in support of her notability mentions her only in passing.  She was the wife of a minor Italian duke and not herself a political figure, so WP:NPOL does not come into play.  Zacwill ( talk ) 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She was still a consort of a territory that was quite notorious for then.  How could she not be notable?  YorkDr ( talk ) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : After recent contributions, a lot of information has been added about her personally with additional citations so it isn’t just about genealogy and therefore does not fit WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  Theodora is also a very notable person in history, especially for Guastalla.  My other reason : This article should stay on Wikipedia because is that it provides a comprehensive overview of her life.  It includes important details about her marriage to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga and her connection to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her impact on Augsburg such as the masked balls.  The article seems to be well-researched and mostly cited, which adds credibility to the information presented.  Overall, it's a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Princess Theodora's life and historical significance.  Also she should meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG after her hosting masked balls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Azarctic ( talk • contribs ) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hosting a few parties does not make the host notable or meet the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER .  DrKay ( talk ) 07:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.”  Of which she did, so she should be able to get away with that criteria.  Azarctic ( talk ) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She didn't make unique, prolific or innovative contributions, so she doesn't qualify.  I don't think you understand what organizing a masquerade ball entails.  It's just a grand-type of costume party.  DrKay ( talk ) 17:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that.  But a masked ball is still a field of entertainment coming under as an attraction.  and as you say “costume party” that is entertainment as well.  I understand it isn’t unique or innovative, but it was still a prolific contribution as they were highly productive.  Azarctic ( talk ) 22:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Also, I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers.  People in her position were public figures.  Deletion serves no useful purpose.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above!  She was a duchess of a noble court, not a housewife or a likely YouTuber.  In her era, criticizing her or one of her family members would certainly result in beheading.  That's how significant a duchess was.  2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A ( talk ) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of

Discussion outcome: redirect