Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infanta Branca, Lady of Guadalajara

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 keep. Swarm ♠ 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Branca, Lady of Guadalajara

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

She was never Lady of Guadalajara (in Spain). Modern sources just say she was a nun at a convent there. Not much known about her and what is known and referenced is already in the articles of her parents. Not sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Maragm (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bwuh? So there is a published dispute about who she actually was? To me that shows notability on its own. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think children of reigning monarchs should generally be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the title needs to be changed. If what is on the page is all that is known of her, then it can probably be merged (and apparently has been already) into the article on her father. Notability is not inherited, so being the daughter of so-and-so is not enough. I don't know enough about medieval Portugal to say whether this article could be expanded or not (I suspect not), but the real problem with these stubs is that left on their own they just become cluttered. We can summarise all we know in two sentences and yet we have an infobox, an ancestry table and two navboxes that altogether are much larger than the actual article. And with that I have just argued myself into a delete vote, but I would be happy with a redirect or even a name change accompanied by a slimming down. Srnec (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep (merge). I agree with Srnec's points just above. If this all we got, I think we should keep the information but we do not need a full article for that. The information is still important though, even if this specific daughter has not made much (that we currently are aware of), any child and any action related to one, of a king over here in Portugal in those days was an act of political significance (e.g. a daughter meant possible marriage-alliance) - Nabla (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this current article still seems convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is to be kept (which I don't agree with since all the info known is already in parents' articles), name must be changed. Infanta should not be used in title; name should be in English (Blanche) and it is necessary to remove that she held the title of Lady of Guadalajara which is not confirmed in any sources since she was merely a nun at a convent there, perhaps lady of the convent, but not of the city. --Maragm (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2016 (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.