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. This does not appear to be a hoax, but there is agreement that the subject is not notable. A redirect can be created in its place if there is a suitable target. – bradv🍁 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily[edit]

Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily (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)

Author Kate Heartfield has publicly raised concerns about this article, namely that her research indicates this person never existed. See this social media thread for more, including a detailed examination why this person likely never existed. I also researched this topic and couldn't find any primary sources indicating this person ever existed. Add in that the article was created by a permanently banned Wikipedia editor and there are strong reasons to doubt the truth of what is written here. My opinion is this is a hoax which has existed on Wikipedia for nearly 10 years. SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The second reference points to a Dyson book, which can be found online and does not talk about her. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absent compelling evidence that the subject exists and is notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's concern that this is a hoax. There doesn't appear to be anything that shows she existed, an author is publicly doubting its validity, and the article was created by a banned editor. If someone can find sources that prove that she exists and that she's notable, I'd be willing to change my !vote (as long as they aren't circular sources, since this article has existed for almost 10 years and could've affected the real world). Clovermoss (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: she appears in articles for Ferdinand (her father) and her sister and perhaps elsewhere, so if this is deleted all of those articles must be cleaned up. Note that the fact that reference to her in other articles would make this a rather elaborate hoax. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a ton of links and references throughout Wikipedia. I'll go in and remove all of them if the article is deleted. And this does indeed indicate the hoax was very elaborate, as you said.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So someone who has very deeply studied the alleged mother's diary finds no sourcing to show this person every existed. This seems to be a very elaborate hoax, and its existence on Wikipedia is disturbing. The fact that the author in question seems to think we should bow down and allow to stand any article on any woman anywhere just because she exists makes me have to wonder what the real goals are here. However this article clearly should not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same editor who created this page put the information about her on her alleged twin sister's page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to admit I am unconvinced Prince Giuseppe of Naples and Sicily who really did die of smallpox in February 1783 is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this does not appear to be a hoax, but it also does not appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mom and even if existed the subject doesn't appear to pass any criteria for inclusion. The Living love ^talk 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a typical Tom article. Even had she been an actual person, I probably would have favoured deletion anyways as it feels like an argument of inherited nobility and the whole article just looks to be about her immediate relations CiphriusKane (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. This is ridiculous. We've deleted an article because of OR by a non-expert published on social media, and that's stupid. Yes, the article was started by a sock, but there are substantial contributions by good faith editors (such as this one) in the history. We need to restart this AfD with a clean discussion.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if the subject existed the point about not passing the GNG stands. The sources cited both in the article and the DRV appear to be passing mentions, including genealogies and the like. Given that the subject died at a very young age at a time when that wasn't uncommon we don't have any good reason to think better sources are out there. It might be worth redirecting to an article on a family member, those often have lists of children. Hut 8.5 18:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reirect eihe t the father Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies or to te twi sisyer[reply]
• I note that the genealogical tables cited in the article were published in 1768, but the subject was born in 1779. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but Nostradamus published in the 16th century, so it's not impossible this could have been prophesied by then. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - if this person really is fictional, the creator of the article didn't invent her, as she is listed in Burke's "Royal Families" (vol 1, p 528), published in 1977, and doubtless elsewhere. It would surely make better sense to add her as a footnote to the lists of children in her parents' articles (Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies and Maria Carolina of Austria) with a comment to the effect that her existence has been disputed (although apparently only on Twitter: is that good enough? it wouldn't normally be). Ingratis (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since she would be of equal importance in the articles about her mother and father there is no good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. The article on the twin sister Maria Cristina of Naples and Sicily is also a possible redirect target. Burke's a few decades ago was a reliable enough source to justify adding Maria Cristina Amelia as a child of both parents, with or without a footnote. Ingratis (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not disputing that she should be added to those pages, just that we shouldn't redirect to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understood what you wrote: I'm suggesting that there's a possible redirect to the twin sister instead. (My other comment refers to earlier comments on whether this is a hoax article). Ingratis (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 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.