Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility

WP:DELSORT/Royalty and nobility

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:

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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Royalty and nobility. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Articles for deletion

Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please note that this isn't about deletion. This is for Merging article with George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. My main concern is that the fork article is longer than the article about the person. Most of this could fit into the biographical article. Alternately, move the sections about the downfall of the Duke of Clarence to bio article while making this one entirely about the incident of the miscarriage of justice - which was what the article was about initially, as I understand.

It's also worth noting that the history behind the Duke's fall is far more complex, with his brother using this incident more as an excuse to get rid of him for past treasonous behavior like changing sides during the Wars of the Roses and going against his brother the King. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kategate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After checking through the references, I am unable to find any noteworthy coverage beyond March to early-April 2024. This appears to just fall under WP:NOTNEWS. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We literally have an entire New York Times article from January 2025 dedicated to the whole timeline of events from last year. She was one of the runners-up for Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2024 again due to the events of past year. I personally voted in favor of the deletion of Where is Kate?, simply because it went into absurd discussions about videos and conspiracy theories. This article though discusses an action by the subject herself, namely publishing and then retracting a doctored photo; which was released on the platform of a supposedly respected institution, namely Kensington Palace. And at this point we do have multiple pages dedicated to Royal scandals namely Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, etc. Cannot see why Kate should be the only one whose actions cannot be discussed. Keivan.f^Talk 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article in question only concerns a particular incident during the whole cancer diagnosis affair, one which only lasted for about a month before the press stopped covering it. The New York Times artice linked above only summarizes the photo scandal in two sections, which indicates that the Photogate scandal content should probably be merged into a separate article. The Time shortlist makes no mention of the photo scandal. As for the other links, we should keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in mind. Not all royal scandals are deserving of a Wikipedia article; long-term coverage for each must be demonstrated, but even at a glance, the reference sections of each of the three linked -gate articles have sources spanning multiple years of coverage. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with @Keivan.f. This article is clearly focused on the photo editing incident, not general speculation or trivia. The event was widely reported by reliable sources and sparked international media coverage—far more than passing interest. It’s clearly notable and distinct from general speculation, and its sources support standalone coverage.Given its reliable sourcing and , it easily meets notability and deserves to stand. MSincccc (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The international media is not beyond covering passing interest. In order to show that the subject has lasting notability, coverage from (ideally) later than March-April 2024 should be provided. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave an example with the New York Times, which even goes into greater depths about all the events from last year, which Wikipedia cannot do since it's not a news website. And we don't necessarily need to see daily coverage of an event from the past to establish its notability. Do we get daily coverage on celebgate or emailgate? Of course not. But they do get discussed in contexts related to their respective subjects. Keivan.f^Talk 15:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the NYT article only mentions the entire Photogate scandal in two headings, namely under "March 10, 2024" and "March 11, 2024." This indicates the Photogate scandal should also be placed in a separate Wikipedia article discussing the cancer diagnosis more broadly. Additionally, while it is understood that long-term coverage does not mean constant coverage, notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps an article titled "Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales" (currently a redirect) should be made, since I do see long term coverage of that subject. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cancer diagnosis has nothing to do with the digital alteration of the photograph released on Mother's Day. It is just that the diagnosis was revealed to the public a few days after this incident. MSincccc (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the exact WP:BLP type of issue that got Where is Kate? deleted in the first place. We may be able to discuss events within a living person's life, but we cannot have pages that discuss their medical status with running commentary. The publication of this photo was a PR move to quash the controversy surrounding her temporary retirement from public life but unfortunately it backfired spectacularly due to amateur editing techniques. That is something that can be discussed without violating the subject's right to medical privacy but an article on her cancer diagnosis would be a bit of an overreach. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, then let no such article be made. Until we receive long-term coverage of Photogate specifically (beyond the media spike in March 2024), there is no reason to have it as an article. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the BLP concerns rectified there are clearly enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tabloid story with no lasting coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Squidgygate, Tampongate and Megxit also started as a tabloid stories. It's widespread coverage that matters, not necessarily where the story originated from. Keivan.f^Talk 11:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the second half of my comment. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the examples below of articles from 2025 that discussed her Mother's Day post from this year and contrasted it with her post from last year. Keivan.f^Talk 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above that this was about Catherine's own actions, rather than tabloid gossip. There seem to be multiple sources. Blackballnz (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales § Privacy and the media (or better still, to an anchor at the relevant paragraph within that section). This has received no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nor resulted in WP:LASTING effects. Even if one were to argue that there was enough WP:DEPTH of coverage during the initial news cycle to pass WP:EVENT, WP:NOPAGE applies. The existing paragraph in the main article is sufficient (with no need to merge any further details in my opinion). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of disagree with your points regarding WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING. The media has literally been discussing the video she released this year, while pointing out the fiasco from last year (1, 2). Keivan.f^Talk 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Privacy and the media - per Rosbif73. It is due there, but it is of insufficient note to require a separate article, which is therefore overwritten. A clear case of WP:PAGEDECIDE favouring the placement of this event inside the broader context, rather than requiring a spin out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We still have Beergate and Plebgate. Better off in its own article, than cluttering up the main article with mindless tabloid trivia. "lol" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Kategate' is a much better title that's inclusive of the entire affair and rectifies the BLP concerns of the previous article. Clearly a notable series of events with world-wide top-tier front-page coverage, and the article matches our coverage of other occurrences such as Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, Beergate, Plebgate, etc. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm dubious about a redirect given that I can't find much in the way of continuing interest in this either. The thing has serious BLP issues given that the whole framing is that of the righteous media having caught the princess doing something which they claim is terribly naughty even though it's not even very clear what the alterations actually were, much less that anything was done terribly wrong in making them. If there is a real topic here, it is the press's adversarial relationship with her, of which this is but one passing incident. And the persistence of a list of other "-gate" trivial scandals testifies to a lack of imagination by headline writers, but it's still all WP:OTHERSTUFF of no relevance to this story except perhaps to alert us to the presence of other article wanting for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the whole framing is that of the righteous media having caught the princess doing something which they claim is terribly naughty This argument can be extended to Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, Beergate, and literally most of the other -gate scandals. It is literally nobody's business that Diana's lover called her Squidgy, or Charles wanted to be Camilla's tampon or Meghan wanted to be a millionaire in California, yet they all received widespread coverage. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge anyone, but we can have an article on a widely covered event that affects the public image of the royal family. And please, it's not like Kate herself sat behind a computer and published the photo; it was her staff at Kensington Palace and an amateurish PR error of this magnitude by a royal institution is noteworthy. Keivan.f^Talk 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we're not to use tabloid journalism as the only source in BLPs, why do these articles have titles invented and primarily used by tabloids? I think Kategate started on social media and has been used in some reliable sources - though often in quotation marks, but it doesn't seem like the best choice for an encyclopedia. Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a reader of British tabloids, I have to say I missed all these flash-in-the-pan controversies, and that's what they were. I mean, they might have a place in an article on how badly Diana-and-Charles were treated by the press, but do they have any other lasting significance of themselves? I doubt that, and to repeat, they are other stuff which exists in WP which has to stand or be deleted on their own merits. And sadly, Diana having been dead for years and having been separated from Charles for longer, the WP:BLP issues are not as pressing, not to mention that press hounding likely played a factor in her death. We don't need to help them do it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's coverage also in German, which I missed but saw now searching: NZZ, Spiegel, Heute, Standard, you name it. It's #Kategate or "Kategate", and temporary. I don't see a need for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of this topic in NYT and in other places seems to support maintaining the article. Векочел (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Johannes Heinrich of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's significance is not shown. He was born after the overthrow of the monarchy and was never a prince. The article mainly shows genealogical information. RobertVikman ^Discussion 15:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find much significant coverage from a cursory search, just ancestry pages D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2025 (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.

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Proposed deletions

Hywel ab Owain (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

Deletion reviews

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