Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada of Holland

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. The overall consensus is that there is enough evidence to consider her notable. However, the concerns raised about the risk of conflating information about different, but similarly named, people do deserve more attention. The keep result here should not be interpreted as meaning the article should stay at this particular page name. Options for renaming and using this page name for a redirect or disambiguation can be discussed elsewhere. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ada of Holland

[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)

The article is merely a genealogical entry, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. All references in reliable sources to Ada of Holland are actually to Ada, countess of Holland. There is no significant coverage of this Ada in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several books were written about this 12th century countess. She is frequently mentioned also in other works. Meets WP:BASIC. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- gidonb, you are confusing this Ada of Holland, who was not a countess, with another Ada of Holland, who was a countess. The latter is notable but the former is not. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing this out. I'll look at it again later, hopefully! gidonb (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a genealogical entry article that says nothing substantial about the subject herself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject was essentially the queen of the Margraviate of Brandenburg, a fair-sized country in modern Germany, from 1176 to 1184. If we can't find significant coverage about her then I strongly suspect we just haven't looked hard enough. At the very least merge/redirect to Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg. Hut 8.5 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, she was not essentially queen or notable, just like the current minister-president of Brandenburg's wife is not notable or anything akin to a queen. Brandenburg was not a country then just like it is not now, but a fief. Being married to a vassal, or indeed to anyone no matter how powerful, is not one of the grounds for inclusion. I write articles about medieval figures, and I can assure you that there being no coverage of an obscure 12th-century vassal's spouse is not surprising. I have looked for coverage in German language too, but there is not any. Please feel free to look and prove me wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Holy Roman Empire was not remotely comparable to modern Germany but was a far looser confederation: The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west...a decentralised, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units...The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories. So Brandenburg was effectively an independent state at the time, and she was married to its hereditary ruler. If suitable sources are likely to exist then deletion on notability grounds is inappropriate (WP:NEXIST). Hut 8.5 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - How amazing ! Are u trying to compare absolute monarchy with today's ? Respect your brain. The monarchs of Brandenburg can't be compared with modern minister-presidents, there is definitely a greater notability as the monarch fills both political and communal functions. VocalIndia (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That comment comes across as rather rude - perhaps more so than you intended? Furius (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Brandenburg was certainly not an independent state to any degree under the Hohenstaufen and this Ada was in no way a queen nor has any historian ever described her as such. Being married to someone notable explicitly does not translate to being notable anyway, under WP:INVALIDBIO. And if sources are likely to exist, you are welcome to cite them. Merely stating that they must exist is unhelpful; see WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Surtsicna (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. There are many source in Italy Wikipedia it:Adele d'Olanda. Unfortunately I can't read Italy text but Italian can. If you are not an Italian, you should not jude on Italian source. Best regards VocalIndia (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not need to be Italian to speak Italian or to see that the sources cited there are primary sources. Notability is established by significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:GNG. This means that sources on Italian Wikipedia do not indicate notability. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Most of the sources are came from books. Have you check Italian language books?? 🤔 VocalIndia (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources are primary sources. Those are not indicative of notability. I have done my share of checking. Do some checking yourself and cite secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth if you find them. I am telling you there are not any. Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @VocalIndia: wrote on the Italian Wikipedia's Help Desk asking for help.
        
        How Surtsicna pointed out, the whole bibliography is made by primary sources: there are just Latin documents.
        
        There are three secondary sources: [1], [2] and [3], which doesn't seem to prove notability of any kind. ValeJappo (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this academic source from Columbia University's the Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning website, which showing that she was Margravine and still actual historic significance. I also found A letter from Ada Printed source: Oorkondenboek van Holland en Zeeland tot 1299, ed. ACF Koch, 1.453-54, #273. It is enough to meet WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does not constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. There is no dispute about her having a title. The contention is that there is no in-depth coverage, and you have not demonstrated any. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hum? you mean media coverage ? She lived in the thousand years ago. We not live at that time, so for know what's her ability, birth and death date, her activity is so hard and in records, there just info about her name, family (even there is some are didn't know who's their families) and general information. historic source only available in the books or academic papers. How much do you need? VocalIndia (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this were about someone from the 1940s or 1950s, then I would say that they do not meet WP:GNG, but this type of a Queen consort from millennia ago, clearly an important figure in the historiography of modern Germany. VocalIndia (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- She was not a queen in any sense. Historians do not call just about anyone a queen, and if she were an important figure in history, there would be coverage of her in historiography. But there is not. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Italian wiki article shows that there are a substantial range of sources on this figure. Furius (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for discussing coverage in sources. The Italian article is purely a genealogical entry and very much goes off topic. The sources cited there are primary sources, while WP:GNG requires a topic to have received significant coverage in secondary sources to be considered notable. Therefore, the sources cited in the Italian article do not indicate that the article passes English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments for keeping this article. They mostly boil down to WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and WP:JUSTNOTABLE. Firstly, that doesn't demonstrate WP:Notability. Secondly, notability is not the sole issue here—the fact that this is a purely genealogical article in itself constitutes a reason to delete it per WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia), specifically because Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY.
That being said, deletion is also not an ideal solution because of the risk for confusion with Ada, Countess of Holland that has been amply demonstrated above, and the further risk of confusion with Ada van Holland (died 1258). There are several possible solutions here. The simplest is to just convert this title to a disambiguation page. Another is to turn this into a redirect somewhere appropriate (I would suggest List of consorts of Brandenburg#Margravine of Brandenburg, 1157–1356 rather than Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg for reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Grant Bennett) and create Ada of Holland (disambiguation). TompaDompa (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a fair point. What this should redirect to is Ada, Countess of Holland, as virtually every reference to Ada of Holland is a reference to the countess of Holland. Surtsicna (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This claim that she married Otto I and then her step-son Otto II seems strange to me and there doesn't seem to be a source for it. Have we combined two separate Adas? Furius (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent catch. Such a marriage would have been impossibly incestuous in the 12th century. The German Wikipedia's article, which for some reason is not linked from English Wikipedia's, states that she did not marry Otto I at all and that this was mistakenly stated in older sources, but does not cite a secondary source that discusses this supposed confusion. It looks like this conclusion comes from an editor. Anyway, that article too rests on primary sources, though it also cites a 4-sentence entry in the 1912 Dutch Biographical Dictionary, which is so far the most extensive coverage of the subject I have found. TompaDompa, is that something you would consider sufficient? Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The German article should be linked now. Opera hat (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, that's a big catch! Getrman Wikipedia article looks very deep. There are many sources going to dig a bit more here. Thank you VocalIndia (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Amazing! she was the consort of two Margraves, Otto I and his step-son Otto II. At first I was very confused. VocalIndia (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        She was not. Please read more carefully. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing what the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy says (this is currently cited for the statement Around 1175, while still young, Ada married Otto I of Brandenburg, becoming Margravine of Brandenburg., despite explicitly saying The identity of Ada´s Brandenburg husband is difficult to establish with complete certainty.) to what the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek says, I'm getting increasingly concerned about what we're doing here. It's possible that we're creating a WP:FRANKENSTEIN, but it's also possible that not enough is known from the extant primary sources for the secondary sources to be able to say anything with certainty (or reasonably close to certainty). This needs to be resolved regardless of the outcome of this AfD, because it affects other articles (Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg, Otto II, Margrave of Brandenburg, List of consorts of Brandenburg, and so on). I'll also note that the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek says Zij liet hem geen kinderen na en overleed in 1205, vermoord door een ridder te Schönewalde bij Frankfort aan de Oder, toen haar gemaal op reis was naar het Heilige Land. which if my translation from Dutch is correct contradicts the article's claim that A knight tried to murder Ada in Schönwalde and was sentenced to death by Otto II.
  To answer the question asked by Surtsicna: no, I don't consider that source sufficient. It of course meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 3 which means she is likely to be notable, but the entry contains little besides genealogy meaning we still don't have the WP:Significant coverage which would make her meet WP:GNG, and the article itself remains a genealogical entry padded out with things that aren't really about her, such as In 1184, Otto I founded a nunnery at Arendsee and in the founding charter, Ada appears along with Otto's three sons, giving assent to the foundation. Especially in light of the concerns about contradictory and unclear information, I don't think this is satisfactory. TompaDompa (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has an entry (though admittedly not a very long one) in the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. Opera hat (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree per User:Opera hat; passes WP:ANYBIO#3. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know it this could be helpful or not but, based on Kroniek van Johannes de Beke, page 117, her mother was the daughter of Henry of Scotland, a prince.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by familial relationships (WP:INVALIDBIO), so her being a great-granddaughter of a king is not relevant to the discussion. The goal should be to determine whether there is a significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No...Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A granddaughter of a prince does not make her notable automatically. However, Thanks for your comment and source. Cheer Taung Tan (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, based on inclusion in the NNBW. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2021 (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. Also passes WP:ANYBIO. ~~She lived in thousands years ago, more offline sources may available in national libraries.~~ Taung Tan (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan, WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST is not a valid argument. I am perplexed that this needs be said - again. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my keep is the first two sentences that passes WP:ANYBIO but the last one is extra comment. Why so serious? Taung Tan (talk) 03:02, 28 July 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.