Talk:Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a August 2005 deletion debate see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia
Alexander was not Alexander and Maria's first child, he was born AFTER his brother Nicholas, so there is no need for a paragraph about how if he hadn't died, Russia might have ended up different, etc. This may be a confusion between his father and uncle; Alexander III's brother, Tsesarevitch Nicholas, died as a young man, and his title and fiancé, Dagmar of Denmark, were both passed to his younger brother, Alexander. Morhange 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC) 0
[edit] delete eventually
This article is clearly unencyclopedic. The baby in question did not do anything individually prominent, nor represented anything historically important. Just the fact that he was born an imperial, does not suffice. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. Or possibly, if the history may have altered significantly, had the baby lived. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 08:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This article begins to be a joke
A couple of days ago, some editor added following to the page: "Alexander's death may have impacted on Russia's future. Unlike his father and grandfather, Nicholas II could not count on support from his brothers during his reign; Alexander dead, their younger brother Georgi ill for most of his life and dying early; and Michael, who spent most of Nicholas' latter reign in exile. If Alexander had lived, he might have been the brotherly support Nicholas needed, and likewise, had Alexander married someone of equal birth and had children, the pressure on Nicholas and Alexandra to produce a son might not have been so intense."
I regard that sort of speculation totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Moreover, it tells much about driving force and habits of certain editors. All this bulls--t for a text of a dead baby. To make a long article out of thin air. Arrigo 11:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's better than the earlier version that claimed he was Alexander III's first child and how his death "was a catalyst in the future history of the world" when in reality, Alexander was the younger brother. I think it suffices to say that a Tsar relies on the support of his brothers, and Nicholas was denied that support three times in 1870, 1899 and 1912. Morhange 19:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
