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.
From what I can tell, this individual did not in fact exist, and this article is a hoax. Two things that first caught my intention- first, this page has been marked as unreferenced since December 2009 - over 14 years. And when I looked, there was no sources about the nun that I could find (however, someone who speaks Portuguese and is familiar with Portuguese history may be able to find something, assuming Maria of Portugal really was a nun). Second of all, there is no Portuguese wiki page for this individual, which for a princess/infanta of Portugal is odd. There are 4 interwiki pages, but they all seem to be direct translations of the English page, and likewise have no sources. Next, the article claims that this nun was born in 1264, died in 1304, and was the daughter of
Afonso III of Portugal and
Beatrice of Castile. They did have a daughter named Maria of Portugal, who was in fact born
c. 1264/1265, but died in 1266.
Jaguarnik (
talk) 15:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, no evidence that this person existed & indications are that they did not, as above.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Unfortunately, not much help regarding this person (or non-person, as the case may be) on
wikidata. There is one reference at the
British Museum that cites the same years of birth/death as our article (Q: Do the folks at the British Museum use Wikipedia without attribution?), the rest mostly leads back to enwiki. None of the other wikis have any good references that I can see (and most refer back to our article too). What's curious is that the creator of the article (who also created some of the other linked articles about Afonso III's progeny), as well as some of the early editors, all seem to be genuinely knowledgeable and have done a lot of work on Portuguese royals/nobles, etc. Puzzling too that this seemingly innocuous little article could turn out to be a longer standing hoax than
Jar'Edo Wens. --
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
PS: Assuming no airtight evidence confirming the existence of this person surfaces, my vote is Delete (and add to
WP:HOAXLIST). --
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 21:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: If this turns out to be a hoax, it would be the longest-running hoax article in Wikipedia's history at 18 years, 5 months (see
WP:HOAXLIST). Worth noting that all of actual information in this article came from its very first edit from an anonymous user on 25 August 2005. Every edit since then has been things like formatting/rewording. A quick Google search for the convent where she supposedly lived ("Convent of the Lady Canons of Saint John"/"Convento das Donas Cónegas de São João") turns up no results other than ones that clearly came from this article. Do we have any sources prior to 2005 mentioning this person, or this convent?
Crystalholm (
talk) 18:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. The first source from
JaguarnikMethodo breve e facil para estudiar a historia Portugueza formado em humas taboas chronologicas e historicas dos reys, rainhas, e principes de Portugal, filhos illegitimos, Duques, Duqueças de Bragança, e seus filhos matches the article exactly so this is not a modern hoax. What needs to be tracked down is why the modern sources cited in her father's article say she died in infancy but this old one says she lived 40 years and become a nun. And that needs an investigation by a professional level historian. I can't decide whether the article should be kept or redirected to her father in the interim.
Eluchil404 (
talk) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The 1876 Historia de Portugal says that Maria was born in late 1264 or early 1265 and is mentioned in one document with no discussion of later life (if any) that I can find.
Eluchil404 (
talk) 03:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - not clear why we'd want a redirect given that the "(nun)" in the title is dubious. Further discussion as to whether this was a hoax or just an error can continue on the talk page for this deletion discussion but I don't see a compelling reason to keep this discussion open until that's resolved, as it's entirely possible that it won't have a conclusive answer. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:59, 15 February 2024 (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.