Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Tudor of England

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Katherine Tudor of England}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Katherine Tudor of England}})

No evidence of actual notability for this princess who lived for just 8 days. I suggest redirecting to Elizabeth of York#Death and aftermath or another target if someone can suggest a better one. Fram (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Fram (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Question No notability for a Princess that is mentioned in over 50 different historical books? Govvy (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Not really, no. Is she mentioned as anything else than the infant of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII which died after a few days? Is there a reason to have a separate article instead of just a redirect? Let's take e.g. the first Google Books hit: [https://books.google.be/books?id=v0DtpU2HtHUC&pg=PR7-IA1&dq=%22katherine+tudor%22+%221503%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHhoPAzKWNAxV4VqQEHefOLXgQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=%22katherine%22%20%221503%22&f=false Tudor: The Faily History]. She is a name in a family tree, and the complete text about her in this specialized book: "Two more children would die as infants: Edmund, born in 1499, and Katherine in 1503". The most I can find are a few lines, which just repeat what's said at the redirect target: birth, death, death of mother.[https://books.google.be/books?id=BiyyueBTpaMC&pg=PA185&dq=%22katherine+tudor%22+%221503%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9qpK2zaWNAxXlVaQEHSBCGpo4ChDoAXoECAwQAw#v=onepage&q=%22katherine%20%22%20%221503%22&f=false] Fram (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{reply|Fram}} There is such a thing as being notable through nobility, regardless of the length of life. It's just your choice of words. In fact, its a fatal floor in wikipedia to choose these words. As always, it's how you use the information you have. To me, choosing the right wording is important. Govvy (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::And here I thought notability is not inherited. I must have missed the note that said that anyone is notable by force of being born from the right parents, no matter if their life had actually any real world impact beyond their direct family. Fram (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elizabeth of York per nom. The largest part of this article is based on identifying her siblings and parents, which is information that already appears in her parents' articles. I am not surprised that Katherine is mentioned in historical books, but I would guess that those "mentions" are quite brief because she only lived for a few days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per nomination. Even if there is significant coverage, this doesn't seem worth an article. The sources look quite poor on this one; there's an AQA book and Tudor Times doesn't look like a reliable source - the About Us page is empty. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as per nom - was going to suggest her father's page as a better target (he being more notable than her mother), till I actually read Fram's suggested target and I now see it's the better one as her birth contributed to her mother's death. PamD 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering if we even need this redirect. I guess it does no real harm, but "Katherine Tudor of England" is a name not used in any books or websites and seems to be an invention by the article creator. Fram (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as above. I also strongly object to the silly article title. The article should have been expanded or discussed at the original articles Katherine Tudor (1503) and Katherine Tudor, Princess of England, not created as a new one: see Help:Your first article#Search for an existing article. This looks like an attempt to subvert the redirection of those articles by creating the same article at a different title. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elizabeth of York: A very minor historical figure, mentioned in history books. But not notable enough to deserve her own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per all of the above. Same situation as Katherine Tudor (1503) and Katherine Tudor, Princess of England. An 8-day old child cannot be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Elizabeth of York I agree that redirecting makes the most sense here. Lacks notability to justify her own page but the information is still good enough to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.