Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Tudor (II)

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. Sandstein 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Tudor (II)

Not sufficiently notable PatGallacher (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. This article was put up for proposed deletion, and was very near passing it before somebody objected. This article concerns a royal child who may only have lived for a few hours after birth. To compound the problem, it is not clear that this son of Henry VIII of England and Anne Boleyn was even a live birth, it may only have been a miscarriage, I will check sources. The article is also unreferenced. "Henry Tudor (II)" also seems like a bad title for this person, for a number of reasons. The alternative history novel mentioned is not relevant enough to make this person notable, since it is not clear that the author was thinking of this person, or any specific son of Henry VIII. PatGallacher (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this person was born alive, merge to Henry, Duke of Cornwall, which covers both of this person's similarly named half-brothers, and is also properly named per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals. If not, delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, if this person is notable then Henry, Duke of Cornwall is how Wikipedia should refer to him, as his highest title during his extremely short life. So we could say something about him there. However as a bad title which nobody would normally search for this article should be deleted, not just turned into a redirect. PatGallacher (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a mention in King Henry VIII's article that this son may or may not have been stillborn. Firstly, there is not much to go on. Second, just being born/still born is not enough for notability, even for a Royal. The "alternate history" part can be covered in an article about Mr. Dick's book. Cheers Dloh cierekim 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is anything to say, put it with the father.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand if possible, delete otherwise. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the main Anne Boleyn article, which unlike this article seems reasonably well-sourced. There is some uncertainty as to how many miscarriages and stillbirths Anne had in her time, but I see no mention of the possible live birth of a boy, however short-lived. PatGallacher (talk)
Here is what the main Henry VIII of England article has to say, although this is unsourced and should not be taken as gospel: "Historians are uncertain if the child was born and died shortly after birth, or if it had been a miscarriage. The affair was hushed up and we cannot even be certain of the child's sex." PatGallacher (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any relevant information should be in the main article -- it seems to be there already, just needs a source. A possible miscarriage or stillbirth shouldn't have its own article, and even if it lived a few minutes or hours it would have had no name. Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -- Whether a stillbirth or peri-natal death, the child was clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (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.