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 delete. First of all, I have to discount Richiepip's keep – the fact that Deathlibrarian changed his vote means it is now lacks any arguments supporting it – and Oleryhlolsson's, since his argument is not policy-based. Examining the remaning, policy-based arguments, there is consensus that the article subject lacks notability. Salvio 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Calixta of Lippe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The topic, an obscure princess, does not pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. She has attracted virtually no coverage in reliable sources. The grisly anecdote of her burying her husband is sourced to a self-published website. Looking her up online did not return any proof of notability. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not much on google, *however* she comes up a lot on Google books, (somestimes as Princess Calixta Agnes of Lippe) mentioned quite a lot in various books about royalty and to a lesser degree, history. Seems to be a minor royal, and descendent of Queen victoria. I've added a few references to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I can see "a lot" is rather misleading since it is nearly exclusively genealogy publications. It does not seem to be "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. For example, in the book you cited, she is mentioned only in one sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Surtsicna I agree - she does get mentioned in a number of sources, but in fact, it's not really significant mentions. I've changed my vote. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Deathlibrarian --Richiepip (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Richiepip, they voted delete. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - well-documented, pretty disgusting story, worthy of WP:ODD at least. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it well-documented? It is sourced to a blog. Surtsicna (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. WP:BEFORE didn't show anything that addressed the subject directly and indepth. Sources 1, 2, and 5 are blogs that do not meet WP:V (WP:QS, WP:SPS) for editorial oversight. Sources 3, 4 do not address the subject directly or indepth. The claim of WP:N is entirely based on WP:INHERITED.   // Timothy :: talk  17:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A most intriguing story. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oleryhlolsson, please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's interesting. Personal interest is not grounds for having an article on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2020 (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.