Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Gyeongchang

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Princess Gyeongchang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject's notability completely relies on her relation to other people. As we all know, notability is not inherited. WP is also not a genealogy site. See

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This article was also moved out of draft space by the creator over another editor's objection. Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks abundantly notable as a royal consort with an entry in the professionally edited Encyclopedia of Korean Culture ([1]) and another in a recent biographical dictionary of Korean women 한국여성인물사전, excerpted here. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She was emphasizing documented in reliable sources by historians because of her historical significance. A daughter of
    WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Her position is very high and important enough in the harem hierarchy for her to stay, but her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information. What was she like as a person, did she participate in any known political act, plot, conflict, memorable event? What was her relationship like to other influential people at court, her sympathies, enemies and views? As the article stands now, she appear to be a blank sheat of a person, so it's no wonder the article is nominated; she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. The article really should be developed and expanded with more personal information which confirms her relevance, otherwise a nomination would always appear reasonable even if I don't support it. VocalIndia (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how you believe NPOL applies here? The subject doesn't fit any of that criteria. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler would have the power and she would have none, save for perhaps her household. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She was a high ranking member of the royal court, as VocalIndia explained above. I imagine she had at least as much influence as various historical British Lords who may have never even been introduced at Westminster. pburka (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a lot of speculation, considering no RS state that. I could just as easily assume she had none. --Kbabej (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could. That leaves only the strong GNG argument from Nizolan. pburka (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the scholarly sources I linked do in fact state the role she played in the politics of the time so there's no need to speculate about this based on her title. She was seen as an opponent of the king who succeeded her husband, accused of plotting to install her son on the throne, consequently reduced to commoner status and deposed in 1277. Some rather brief details are also available in English in Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions (1963) here (notes 28 and 30). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify my analogy further, we presume that Lords are notable simply for inheriting a title, even if there's no evidence that they ever voted or debated at Westminster, and we know from historical records that many didn't. I don't think it's a stretch to afford at least the same presumption of notability to royal consorts, whom we know attended court. pburka (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Gyeongchang&oldid=1027492733"