Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchess Elizabeth Nicholaevna of Russia

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. Consensus is that the existence of this person is not verifiable. Sandstein 08:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchess Elizabeth Nicholaevna of Russia

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

Recently deprodded. Argument for retention was that children of monarchs are notable, but notability is not inherited. There is very little information on this infant and all information in this article is already in the parents' and siblings' articles. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was the daughter of an emperor. That makes her notable in her own right. Just like any other child of a monarch (or at least one of a major country). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is completely unsourced. She is not listed among the offspring of Nicholas I and Alexandra Fedorovna in Russian WP. Besides, I could not find her through a cursory search in Russian. A bit strange. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched a bit more. I could find no trace of her in English outside WP clones. No trace of her whatsoever in Russian. I think it might be a hoax. I'm looking forward to be proven wrong. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the above IP, I can find no evidence on either Google Scholar or Google Books that the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Nicholaevna even existed, let alone is sufficiently notable to have an article on wikipedia. At best, she fails GNG; at worst, she is a hoax. Re. Necrothesp's argument, even if she were the daughter of an emperor, WP:NOTINHERITED (only an essay, though commonly accepted) and WP:INVALIDBIO (part of a guideline) both specifically reject the idea that being the child of a notable individual confers notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's a very pronounced difference between the child of any old notable individual and the child of the monarch of a significant country. If you don't agree then try to get an article on any British prince or princess deleted and you'll see what I mean (all such attempts have failed miserably). Consensus is generally that such people are notable by dint of membership of the royal family, which confers inherent notability. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here. The same would seem to apply to children even of some politicians (e.g. US Presidents), who aren't even members of an established dynasty. Although I do agree that proof of her existence (in online sources, at least) is sorely lacking and someone does need to find some references. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have found a reference to her baptism in The Times. She definitely existed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks and a question for Necrothesp Thanks for the precise reference. Are you sure that the Times record does not refer to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia, born on 26 May 1826? I still find the complete lack of any record in Russian very perplexing. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is possible, I suppose. It merely says "on occasion of the baptism of Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Elizabeth". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. It seems the article is going to be kept, although in my opinion it is a rather obvious hoax. I am adding a warning to the Times' reference, lest it be taken as definitive proof that the girl existed, which it certainly is not. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see the reference in the Times, but how do you know it is for Elizabeth Nicholaevna? Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Elizabeth could equally well refer to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia, who was born in the same year. An uncertain primary source reference and an argument which basically boils down to Other Stuff Exists seems pretty unconvincing as an argument to keep to me... (ec: I see you have already said that you don't have any proof that the Times article refers to the Grand Duchess Elizabeth in question, which makes the claim of notability even weaker.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no trace of her except for the ambiguous reference in the Times. But if the Times article did indeed refer to our girl, there would be two Grand Duchesses Elizabeth, Nicholaevna and Michailovna, born a few days from each other. Nicholaevna would die three years later leaving no trace, either in English or in the immense online material about the imperial family in Russian, but the Times' hint. She would not be buried with her peers at the St. Peter and Paul Fortress. For some reason her tomb, assuming her body was not just thrown into the Neva by her devastated parents, would be totally unknown. The Britannica 1911 would blunder into negating her very existence and hence the tragedy of her death: " The emperor was a kind husband and father, and his domestic life was very happy. He had seven children: (1) the emperor Alexander II. (q.v.); (2) the grand-duchess Maria (1819-1876), duchess of Leuchtenberg; (3) the grand-duchess Olga (1822-1892), consort of King Charles of Württemberg; (4) the grand-duchess Alexandra (1825-1844), married to Prince Frederick of Hesse-Cassel; (5) the grand-duke Constantine Nikolayevich (1827-1892); (6) the grand-duke Nicholas Nikolayevich (1831-1891); (7) the grand-duke Michael Nikolayevich (b. 1832)." Imo this is a hoax. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is listed here [1]. Regardibg the 1911 Britannica entry we need to be careful in drawing conclusions as stillborn and infant deaths were often disregarded in the period.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC) If hoax or no lausible sources it should be deleted. If we have proof she existed I would say it should be kept. Haven't made up my mind here yet (still looking).Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a WP clone. Just compare the text with that of the WP article. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC) "infant deaths were often disregarded in the period". Infant deaths of Grand Duchesses of Russia were disregarded in the 19th century? I doubt it. See Grand Duchess Alexandra Alexandrovna of Russia, buried in the Saints Peter and Paul Cathedral in Petersburg. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC) This book in Russian lists Elizabeth's supposed mother's pregnancies and offspring: "4 сына, 3 дочери и два выкидыша" i.e. "4 sons, 3 daughters and 2 miscarriages". The miscarriages are reported, but the phantasmal Elizabeth is not counted among the children. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Infant deaths, stillbirths, and miscarriages are often conflated. But you have me convinced. Note that this has propagated into Nicholas I of Russia, Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia). You'd also think that cousins wouldn't be named the same, though that's just a notion. Alexandra Alexandrovna was almost 7, here we have a 2.5-3.5 year old - not the same.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a detailed list of the Russian empresses' children, including infant deaths and stillbirths, which are listed in the second column. There are numerous kids who were less than three years old when they died in the 18th and 19th century, e.g. 2-year-old Anna Petrovna. Even Pavel Petrovic, who lived only one day, has a tomb in the Peter and Paul Cathedral. Needless to say, no trace of our girl. "You'd also think that cousins wouldn't be named the same". Yes, and if they were (indeed very unlikely in an imperial family), the Times would not refer to either of them simply as "Grand Duchess Elizabeth". Anyways, the fact that this hoax has been on WP for six years is quite amusing. Perhaps it even makes its subject notable. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial sources she existed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot believe that an imperial princess, who died aged 3, achieved anything of note, apart from being born. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no conclusive evidence she ever even existed. I understand she may have been (assuming she is real) a daughter of a monarch but we need actual sources to support this. Ping me if the situation changes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the arguments provided by the IP convince me that this is a hoax that has lasted for six years on this wiki and wasn't noticed until right now. Since this article has remained largely unsourced (save for one reference that might actually be referring to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia) since its original creation in 2011 and there is no actual evidence to support that she even exists (as pointed out, there is no mention of her in the Russian Wikipedia), I'd say delete this article as a hoax. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article of the purported father (Nicholas I) does not list a fourth daughter: Nicholas_I_of_Russia#Issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: It was there prior to the AFD. I removed it as I was convinced it was a probable hoax.Icewhiz (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial RS sourcing, not shown definitively that she existed; and not notable in any regard for stand alone article, if she did. Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (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.