Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Royalty and nobility. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Royalty and nobility|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Royalty and nobility.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.


Articles for deletion[edit]

Robert Thomas Brudenell-Bruce[edit]

Robert Thomas Brudenell-Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland[edit]

Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for failing to prove notability by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This is an 8-year-old child and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability.

Move to restore redirect to Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children section. Similar to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (9th in line for Succession to the Swedish throne). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all Royals and those of Scandinavias children have separate articles. Why should the Swedish royals be any different. Still passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is independently notable. His titles as prince and duke belong to him, not to his parents. The deletion of Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium was probably a mistake. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain - it was likely not a mistake. A great number of adolescent children of nobility redirected to their parents regardless of their title/station. As noted above, please see previous AFDs of children of nobility. Additionally, King Gustaf's grandchildren no longer have royal titles (albeit a bit more nuanced). Just being a noble is not automatic notability (see the failed WP:NR discussion). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where most of you have it wrong including the Harpe Bazzer article cited the child of prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine only lost their styles of His/Her Royal Highness but they are still prince(s) and Princess (s) of Sweden, Duke(s) and Duchesses and still in the line of succession[1] they are listed by the royal court of Sweden as members of the royal family and are not required to perform any duties incumbent of the head of state Ug culture (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] Ug culture (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. The fact that this article contains no information about his life since his christening suggests that he is probably not in the public spotlight. In fact, he and his sisters have had their royal status downgraded since they were born; since 2019, they no longer have the style of "royal highness" and are no longer considered members of the Royal House, although they remain princes and princesses and members of the Royal Family. [1] Practically speaking, this means that as adults they will be expected to pursue careers outside royal duties rather than being paid by the monarch from government funds. (That's not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at the redirect target.) If, in the future, Nicolas does go into the public spotlight, whether as a socialite or as anything else, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His grandfather's sisters(The Haga princesses) are nolonger members of the royal house and their articles are in existence.why then should articles of those who is in the line of succession be deleted and members who are not be retained Ug culture (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The criterion we use is not "Is this person in the line of succession?" but rather "Do we have enough significant coverage of the person in reliable independent sources to warrant an article?". Among persons related to monarchs, there may be some who are excluded from the succession but remain public figures and thus generate significant coverage, while others may be in the line of succession but out of the public eye at least for now (particularly young children). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is an approach that can be strongly questioned. Princes and princesses of reigning royal families are per definition important persons who warrant their own articles. Therefore, this article should be kept, and the deleted articles of his siblings and cousins should be reinstated. Marbe166 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if we are to go by this then Former Monarch of Denmark's grandchildren (prince Joachim's children) whose titles have been taken away and they do not generate significant coverage their articles have not been withdrawn and like Marbe166 said the deleted articles of prince Nicolas's siblings and his cousins should be reinstated Ug culture (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://people.com/royals/princess-madeleine-and-prince-carl-philips-kids-were-stripped-of-their-royal-titles-by-the-king/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Keep addendum: over 4 000 hits in Mediearkivet Retriever [sv]. Okay, some of them are about the Greek prince and the remainder is ~90% gossipy tabloids, which still leaves a couple of hundred hits in Swedish mainstream newspapers. I don't buy that we should have special rules for the nobility, it's the 21st century after all, but neither should anti-royalist sentiments cloud our judgement. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Articles shouldn't be recreated in violation of a previous community discussion. There's insufficient here for a standalone article at present. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grandson of a ruling monarch and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect First, I can't see how he meets WP:GNG. In many AfD discussions the phrase "Meets WP:GNG" seems to be just an elaborate WP:VOTE. If you think that he falls into WP:GNG, please explain why, otherwise your contribution does not provide much progress into a discussion. Second, please refer to the 2020 AfD discussion. If you want to reach a different consensus, you should explain what changed since then. Third, just beeing related to someone notable, like a ruling monarch, does not mean automatic notability, see WP:BIORELATED. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Titles are not, and should not be, part of the criteria for NBASIC. All of the coverage is about him as a relation to his parents and even then a lot of them are just photo galleries which do not amount to substantial coverage, which is to be expected as a christening is a pretty routine event - so they do not meet GNG by my reckoning. I don't know what is meant by Marbe166 saying per definition important persons who warrant their own articles, what definition is this refering to? Being an heir to anything shouldn't confer notability since notability is not inhereted. It is reasonble to assume that there will be coverage of this subject once he grows up, but since that's in the futre there's no good reason to have an article at the moment. ---- D'n'B-t -- 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children: Per Nom. Lacks notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy outlet nor is notability of royal households inherited (Example: Just being the grandson of a ruling monarch is not a stepping stone to an article), See WP:BLPFAMILY. Lacks significant, reliable, and independent coverage for a stand alone article. Bringing in that other stuff exists means there might be more AFD's needed. Notability (royalty) is a failed proposal. It states: "Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable", which is against current community consensus. There is no compelling evidence that anything changed since consensus for the redirect. The people magazine source stated they "lost their official HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" and further, "will no longer be members of The Royal House". The parents of the children involved all made statements they support the Kings decision so their children can have more privacy. Wikipedia should honor this for children. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with this. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent (WP:OUTCOMES). What's good for Great Britain is good for Sweden. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant section of WP:OUTCOMES -- which isn't even a policy or guideline anyway -- doesn't particularly support keeping this article. It says, "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline." (See WP:MONARCH.) Prince Nicolas, as an 8-year-old child, is not exactly "active" in the capacity of a member of a royal house. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Redirect to mother and revdel everything. Nicolas is a non-public figure, a child that has done nothing notable, and the only coverage about him is from royal-watching tabloid publications. The keep votes basically amount to "he has a royal title" or "he's in a royal family", but there's no SNG that says every royal gets a page no matter what. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Several of the keep !votes above rely on the fact that other article exist and that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted. WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits, not in reference to what other articles we may or may not have. Those !votes should be completely discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: Otr500 provides a great reason for REVDEL here: these children are no longer in the line of succession and the press coverage is about them existing, not about them doing anything notable. Our policies (BLP) require that we respect the privacy of these children. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One look at Swedish-language sources shows that the guy gets sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Shan states[edit]

List of rulers of Shan states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a collection of 77 unsourced genealogies, with four footnotes. There is probably a notable list for this topic, but in its current state, WP:TNT is needed to make room; if all the unsourced genealogy material was removed, there would a a title and categories. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site.  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Myanmar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Calling this a genealogy would be the same as calling List of French monarchs a genealogy; technically not incorrect but a bit silly as it is a list of rulers. Certainly passes WP:NLIST; for instance, in the appendix of this book, there is a list of the rulers of about 35 of these states from 1887 to 1959. It seems the majority of the present article is derived from WorldStatesman [2], which is of course deprecated. WP:TNT is an option that is on the table. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I don't know if it's past the WP:TNT tipping point yet. It's likely that much of the content could be sourced from the generic references. Don't think the material is necessarily controversial enough to mandate WP:INLINE citations. Of course, it's also likely that WorldStatesman is the true source, hence the weak keep. I don't personally have much time to edit this week, but I could go through the book Curbon listed or find other books I do have on Shan states and try to inline cite some the week after that. But doesn't seem unrecoverable and full of misinformation just because of a lack of inline citations. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here are some recent (last couple of weeks) examples of why TNT is needed: [3], [4], [5]. None of this is sourced, no one can tell if these edits are correct or not. The article is too far gone to expect anyone to fix it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Good selections- as far as I can tell it isn't merely even changes in romanizations/inconsistent dating between chronicles. Changing my vote to agree on TNT grounds. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially no citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Corkran[edit]

Victor Corkran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.
    It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.
    Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.
    In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.
    My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.
    Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or draftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [6]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice d'Hirson[edit]

Béatrice d'Hirson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion[edit]

Templates for discussion[edit]

Redirects for discussion[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Deletion reviews[edit]

The following royalty and nobility-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Royalty_and_nobility&oldid=1220977286"