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

Earl of Errol

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

Lacks notability. I redirected it to Earl of Erroll (disambiguation), where this specific spelling is included and points to Earls,_Marquises_and_Dukes_in_the_Baronage_of_Scotland#List_of_Earldoms_in_the_Baronage_of_Scotland. The Earl of Erroll (with double L!) is notable, but this other title isn't. It isn't even noted (at the time of writing) in the supposedly first with this title, Andrew Hay, 8th Earl of Erroll, nor in the article about Sir John Ellerman, 1st Baronet, another notable holder of the title apparently. There are no GNews articles even mentioning the current holder of the title[1], nor any pages outside Wikipedia[2]. Fram (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nomination. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV on this, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there are BLP issues that make the redirect the appropriate venue. Nayyn (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find some mention of Willien as the "Earl of Erroll", with two Ls. I see no evidence that single-L/double-L serves as a natural disambiguator here, double-L appears to be the primary spelling for both. I agree with above that this title is not notable. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge: Even if this baronial title were considered notable enough for an article, its main reason for notability would be as a title formerly held by the Earl of Erroll in the peerage. Rather than having a separate article for the baronial title, it would be best to include a section on the baronial title within Earl of Erroll, explaining that the baronial title is no longer in the same family and indicating who now holds it. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Erroll. The new one-L title has no significant sources attached to it that make it notable beyond its deliberately confusing connection to the original double-L title. Wikipedia is not a mirror of Burke's or Debrett's, so the new title's inclusion in their lists doesn't automatically imply a notability sufficient for its own article. What exists could easily be dealt with by a short paragraph in the double-L article, or an entry in the Baronage table. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Changde

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

This article is entirely cited to brief mentions in primary sources: the Ming Veritable Records and History of Ming. In the course of the AfC process, the creator added a large number of citations to unreliable sources, which were removed by me and RovingPersonalityConstruct. The remaining non-primary sources do not mention the subject at all: Early Ming China is available on archive.org [3], the Cambridge History (Volume 7) via TWL; neither mentions this person. The Sotheby's source is also completely unrelated. The four citations to ctext.org provide no indication of where in the 332-chapter Ming Shi we are supposed to look to verify the claims in the article. This leaves an exceedingly poorly-sourced article, with the only somewhat-verifiable citations being four sentences in primary sources – in my view, not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and China. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(In case it helps, I believe sources using Wade–Giles would call her "Ch'ang-te".) Toadspike [Talk] 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Min968 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Amigao (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold on, dude—why do you guys give delete votes without doing any research? SongRuyi (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SongRuyi I have read and considered the comments Toadspike made here, as well as reviewed the current state of the article and its sources. So, it's wrong? Every member has the right to express their opinion from their perspective, right? Min968 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A senior member of the Ming royal family, Princess Changde was a grand princess of the inner court, a position that automatically made her an important figure within the Ming dynasty. The Ming court codified a precise hierarchy for its imperial women, ensuring their status was clearly defined and recognized. An emperor's daughter was titled 公主 (gōngzhǔ), requiring every minister or official to kneel down to pay respect. They also received generous stipends and an official salary of 2,000 dan. That recorded in 《列传第九　公主》.

Upon her brother's ascension, Princess Changde's status was particularly elevated. She was granted the higher title of Grand Princess (长公主), and when her nephew took the throne, her rank became Grand Princess Royal (大长公主), the highest rank attainable by a female member of the imperial clan. Princess Changde held all three titles over the course of her life; this status was not merely nominal. The princess was invested with a golden patent (金冊, jīncè), and her husband, the Prince Consort, received a patent of appointment (誥命, gàomìng). Her marriage was a top-tier political alliance, masterminded by Empress Dowager Sun. Xue Huan was the son of Xue Lu (薛祿), the Marquis of Yangwu (陽武侯) and one of the most celebrated military commanders of his generation. Her political marriage was discussed in 明实录类纂·宫廷史料卷》"Classified Compilations of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History"—pages 28, 196

Moreover, her story—particularly the resolution of her domestic conflict with her husband—illustrates the limited yet significant authority that imperial women could exercise within the patriarchal framework of the Ming court. In this case, the emperor's response was swift and uncompromising, indicating that an affront to his sister was treated as an affront to the throne itself. He ordered the arrest of Xue Huan, the fuma (imperial son-in-law), who was publicly disgraced by being interrogated by the state judiciary "in the outer court" (法司考訊於外庭). The sentence was unusually harsh: he was condemned to death by beheading (論當斬). The incident officially recorded in the 明代中央司法審判制度 - Page 159 . This incident highlights the institutional framework surrounding the status and protection of Ming princesses.

I have a general background in Chinese history and mythology, and I recently succeeded in challenging the deletion of a historical figure's article—by initiating a Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 July 21#Liu Sai and having the decision reversed. I kindly ask that before nominating an article for deletion (AfD), editors take time to conduct basic research. In this case, the article appears to have received near-instant "delete" votes without much investigation or meaningful consideration. It's important to remember that the AfD process is intended to foster discussion and deliberation, not just tally votes—see WP:NOTVOTE. SongRuyi (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SongRuyi I sincerely appreciate your improvements to this article and our coverage of Chinese historical figures in general. I am usually lenient with notability of historical Chinese politicians, especially where it is clear they meet our notability guidelines (e.g. here). However, this article was simply too much for me; it was based on a large number of user-generated, deprecated, or irrelevant sources. Please do not see this as some ignorant purge of Chinese history (which I believe everyone who has commented thus far is very interested in), but as an attempt to uphold basic standards of verifiability. For instance, the article still does not make clear where her purported birth year is sourced from, and I suspect all later mentions of her age are original research. It would be great if you could fix that or, if not, remove those claims.

Often with historical figures we can establish notability via WP:NPOL, though I don't think NPOL applies to princesses, so here we'll need to meet the GNG. I am still not entirely convinced the GNG is met. The best source currently in the article is 明淸笔記史料, which appears to be a secondary source, but I don't have access to it. I am unsure whether the primary sources can contribute to the GNG; I believe there is no clear community position on this (or whether the Veritable Records and Ming Shi are primary at all). Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility/archive, rather than relying on cases involving colonial-era or modern-day PR-stunt princesses. This subject lived over 650 years ago and is discussed in multiple historical books, which is sufficient to meet WP:GNG.

The information of the historical figures was only found in books you labeled as "secondary sources." In my experience, historical books are not considered secondary sources. That is your opinion. This is not a biography of a living person, and different standards apply. I agree that WP:NPOL does not apply to every princess, as there is no specific notability guideline for ancient princes or princesses. Technically, she might meet WP:NPOL, but it's a weak claim.

According to WP:MONARCH, "There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility, and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority." She was influential in court as a grand princess and held one of the highest-ranking palace titles, which supports her meeting WP:ANYBIO.

Her notability is also independent, as her high title was conferred by the emperor, so WP:NOTINHERITED not applies. Moreover, her article goes beyond mere genealogy (WP:NOTGENEALOGY); she was involved in a notable scandal, and multiple books cover her receipt of titles. SongRuyi (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly point out NOTINHERITED. She is not notable solely because she was a princess or because she lived 650 years ago. What would convince me that she is notable is if you could list the "multiple historical books" that discuss her. Based on what is currently cited in the article, I am leaning towards keeping, but I will have to think on it. If you have more sources, preferably ones that are unequivocally secondary, then please share them so we can discuss them. If you could clarify what kind of source 明淸笔記史料 is or provide a quote from it, that would also help.

For context, I am unsure about my personal position on whether the Ming Shi and Ming Shilu are primary; this was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479#Asia with no clear conclusion. I guess this means that whether they count towards the GNG is up to us to decide. Toadspike [Talk] 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For source, see the new comment below. Plus, I have selected AfD outcome examples for you to consider when determining notability in future AfDs about princesses. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Helena Gibbs—this Western noblewoman’s article was kept due to coverage of her simple noble life, despite having no political power. Even a 0-year-old princess (no royal title/0 political power) can be kept if there are historical sources; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stuart (1606). Plus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangsinobhadol Yugala—a minor Thai princess—was kept because of considerable coverage of her death and the royal attendance at her funeral by Princess Soamsawali, which made her important in modern Thailand. See also the interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. Princess Changde of the Ming dynasty was covered far more extensively than these individuals. SongRuyi (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found historically significant material showing her involvement in court politics and her official court biography in the 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 (Classified Compilation of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History Materials). This is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO#1, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

Page 28... The Grand Princess Changde pleaded on their behalf, stating: “The salaries have already been dispensed, and the people of this fǔ (official residence or mansion) are facing hardship in affording food and provisions. We implore that the salaries be granted again.” The Emperor approved her plea. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volume 49)

Page 195... During the Jingtai reign, the Grand Princess of Changde accused Huan of using disrespectful language toward the princess. At the beginning of the Tianshun reign, Emperor Yingzong initially avoided the matter, but the princess entered the palace to file a complaint. Huan was imprisoned, later warned, and then released. She passed away around this time. The court was suspended for one day, and she was granted a state funeral and sacrifices in accordance with imperial custom.

Page 196... The Grand Princess Changde passed away. She was the third daughter of Emperor Xuanzong Zhang, and her mother was Empress Xiaogong Zhang. She was born in the jiachen year of the Yongle era (1424), and in the dingchou year of the Zhengtong era (1437), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Changde and married the Commandant of fuma, Xue Huan. In the dingchou year of the Chenghua era (1477), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Royal Changde. She died at the age of forty-seven. Upon the news of her death, the court was adjourned for one day, and she was granted a royal funeral and burial in accordance with official regulations. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volumes 81 and 83).

The historical account records her scandal in front of the emperor. Moreover, the account also details her receipt of the highest royal titles. This is more than enough to establish that she is an important historical figure. Beyond notability, she was given a royal or state funeral, and the royal court (the governing body of the kingdom) was suspended for one day to honor her death. Unlike other princesses of ancient China, her life is recorded in historical chronicles, while even the basic facts about many other princes or princesses remain unknown today. Well, if we forget about her, even her husband—the Imperial Fuma—easily meets WP:NPOL, as he held a court office by virtue of marrying her. That is the ancient Chinese political system, not a Communist system. How much more do you need?. SongRuyi (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Herrera

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

This article was created by an SPA and probable UPE. It is heavily reliant on https://www.houseofherrera.com/ as a reference and I am an unable to find any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Unless there are Spanish sources that I can't locate, it seems unlikely that WP:GNG is met. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Germany, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework - as the nom notes, the article is largely focused on the estates because that is what the family's website focuses on. However, I found other good sources that explore the history and lineage, when I was working on the Reinaldo Herrera article. I added some of this in the section on Hacienda La Vega, which is also likely contributing to being unbalanced, but there are sources out there. To be fair, that in the article plus some books on the banking dynasty, establishes GNG with what's already present. The article isn't good, but that's not a reason to delete. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Lafayne

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

Page was seemingly created by Antoine himself. Subject is not notable, does not pass WP:GNG. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The last two sources in the external links section [4] and [5] are about this person. I don't see much else, I looked on .fr websites, the only other source that comes up is a bio on the Credit Agricole site, a bank. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find sustained significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources so as to meet WP:BIO. For what it's worth, I note that the corresponding frwiki article was recently deleted because it "does not meet the eligibility criteria". I think that a mention on Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia is OK and sufficient. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Looks AI-generated. Gheus (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – On one hand, I think he is notable. On the other hand, the primary author of the page has admitted to being the subject of the page. If we are to keep the page, the author needs to commit to following WP:COI protocols moving forward, and officially declare their conflict of interest. Additionally, if keep is agreed upon, I think the best course of action would be to stubbify the page, and have the author use Wikipedia:Edit requests to make any additions to it. – Ike Lek (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiographies inevitably involve original research and a conflict of interest with a charity. Any other time, this could slip by, but not these days, when our financial security is in trouble in part due to such conflicts. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the inline sources are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and there's little other coverage. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Keivan.f^Talk 13:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- and have relevant subject redirect or contents merge to Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: