Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess of Swabia

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. There is clearly no appetite for deleting the article, since the subject appears to be demonstrably notable, although there really is no clear consensus as to what to do next. Then again, that's an editorial matter that can be discussed outside of the context of an AfD, so I am closing as keep without prejudice to any further action. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Swabia

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

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

Even if this article weren't an unsourced, confusing, and poorly constructed list, its subject—the title—does not seem to be notable; all results I can find pertain to its bearers. There is no discussion about what authority, if any, the Duchess of Swabia holds, or how the role's history. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and History. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot write knowledgeably about the subject (or her noteworthiness), but I was bewildered when I opened what I thought would be one Duchess, I instead saw a long string of royal houses (that was one long, varied life !); Unless constrained by some project-wide convention, I think it would be clearer to retitle this (if worthy of retention) Duchesses of Swabia. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Duke of Swabia. Completely unsourced list with no explanation of its criteria, and no improvement in over a decade. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be feasible to attach a duchess or duchesses to each duke in that list, as happens with many such lists (e.g. Descendants of Queen Victoria. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table at Duke of Swabia has a "Marriage(s)" column that could potentially contain more information. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding table at Duchess of Swabia, oddly enough, has no column for the names of their husbands, which leaves the reader adrift. I strongly (though perhaps ignorantly) suspect that the corresponding Dukes are at least as notable as their respective Duchesses. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the right hand column. Bermicourt (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After slapping hand to my forehead twice (how could I miss the same thing in two different tables?), I started re-sorting the Duchess tables to put husbands in the middle (after marriage and before duchess-becoming, leaving death as the intuitively-logical end) and boldfacing both spouses, so that they're more apparent to a careless reader like me. I've done maybe 40-50% so far, realizing that my efforts might well vanish in the mist. Incidentally, after years hard-taught lessons in Wiki markup, I was able to remove a lot of unneeded coding.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind this being kept as improved, but would like to see the scope clarified. Why doesn't the list start with Liutgard? And what is the point in having extra (very short) tables for every separate dynasty? —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I've just spent a few minutes on Google Books searching for "Duchess of Swabia" in German and found sources that refer to half of them. Hadwig (Hedwig) is the most frequently mentioned in connexion with this title, but Judith, Reginlind (Regelinda) and Gisela also appear a lot. Others found include: Ida, Matilda, Elisabeth, Gerberga, Adelgund (Adelaide or Adelheid?). And there are two missing from the list: Maria/Marie and Jutta. So it's clear this was a real historical office and this list appears entirely genuine, but no one's added any sources yet. I suspect the nom only searched in English (understandably) and not in German where there are clearly a lot of sources. Bermicourt (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: I've made a start by adding a lead sentence. This article has not been tagged as unreferenced or with any other improvement tags, so should be given a chance before being brought here to AfD. I note that the original creator, clearly a royalty/nobility specialist, edited regularly from 2010 to 2017, but seems not to have edited since then apart from a flurry in Feb 2022, so may not be around to help improve it. PamD 08:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started a discussion at Talk:Duchess of Swabia about adding descriptive details where warranted to make this more than a bare list. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that until a few minutes ago it was only tagged on the talk page with one WikiProject banner: I have added 3 more and left a note to alert relevant editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. PamD 09:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources clearly exist, per Bermicourt. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just added sources for eleven of these women. It's made slighly trickier by the fact that their names in Latin or German are sometimes different from their English names, but the sources give enough information (dates and spouses) to identify them. I've only looked for sources that link the person with the actual title. Of course, there will be a lot more out there that just refer to "Foo of Swabia", but I wanted to establish first that we have people recognised as duchesses of Swabia. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main question is whether they should be listed separately from their husbands. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A subsidiary question would be how much discussion could continue at (or be transferred to) Talk:Duchess of Swabia. While the main question is if Dss of S should be deleted or merged with Duke of S, the distinction between AfD and Talk Page inevitably got muddy with perfectly-legitimate votes to "Keep but Improve" — when you say that, it would seem unconstructive or even perverse to leave "Improve" without at least suggesting how. I am adding my own comment or suggestion in reply to your (User:Kusma's) remark above about lists of dukes and duchesses, but any follow-up should probably be a new topic at the (perhaps doomed) Duchess talk page. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to merging or moving. AFD is not cleanup. Srnec (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has demonstrable notability. It is in need of improvements, not deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (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.