Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility: Difference between revisions

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.

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:

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

Mirza Yusuf Ali (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 completely unsourced, and a BEFORE check shows that this individual is not notable by the Wikipedia definition. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if the individual is not considered notable despite his noble status and relation to the King; the Wasikadars of Awadh is a ‘source’ but I accept that it might not be profound enough Noodles09 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noodles09: Please read our guide to properly citing sources. If you can provide citations to multiple reliable, secondary sources, this article may be kept. Just being the brother of a royal consort is insufficient; sourcing is required to prove notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balthasar von Thannhausen (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)

Does not appear to be a notable individual. I couldn’t find anything remotely reliable about this person. The article makes no claim to notability other than correspondense with other notable people, which does not indicate notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Sources are mostly trivial coverage of the subject’s correspondence with other nobility, and the actual prose of the article has AI tells including markdown formatting. Notability is not substantiated, not to mention the primary contributor’s declared-but-simultaneously-half-concealed COI. Athanelar (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dozens of archive links are not an indication of notability, nor is knowing notable people. Aesurias (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll just leave these here for the Wiki experts: https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/MGSL_12_0003-0033.pdf.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friesach_Ordenskirche_hl._Nikolaus_Dominikuskapelle_Grabplatte_Balthasar_Thanhausen_13092017_1066.jpg.

https://hw.oeaw.ac.at/inschriften/kaernten-2/teil2/kaernten-2-obj257.xml

https://hw.oeaw.ac.at/inschriften/kaernten-2/pdf/kaernten-2-einleitung.pdf

These are just a few examples of references regarding the subject. More will continue to be implemented. Regarding the comment about ‘knowing notable people’, he is mentioned in established articles that I think readers will benefit from if the have an opportunity to read more. Not to mention his duties in Austrian History & History of The Holy Roman Empire.

Thawānthābā (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)

Sources are about the Dynasty in general and don’t realy prove notability; contains very subjective wording that may fail WP:NPOV. Seanwk 🙂 ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand. The sources I put talk about the king in different section, like the Cheitharol Kumbaba and the Khuman Kangleiron, and History of the People of Manipur and History of Manipur. Yes I can fix the subjective wordings but with due respect, saying that the sources are just about the dynasty, are you sure that you checked all of the sources? The Cheitharol Kumbaba is the royal chronicle of the kings of Manipur. The title literally says it. Its more of about each king of Manipur, not just the dynasty. And the Khuman Kangleiron? I only used that source just for the reign year of the Khuman King. The History of the People of Manipur talks about the origins and migrations of each ethnic groups of Manipur and is essentially focused on the Meiteis and each Meitei clan’s royalties. The History of Manipur by Wahengbam Ibohal is also the same with the third book.

Now, the first two sources (not any four of the above), I used them just for the reign year of the Meitei King. I don’t know why I am explaining but I just want to make sure that the sources are not “just” about the dynasty.

Also, just wanted to include: Other new pages reviewers did not have any problems with reviewing mine and other articles with sources like those. I am not speaking with anger but I just want to resolve this quickly peacefully. 🙂 Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Victor Ningthemcha. Your response is too long; that said, I appreciate your efforts to fix the article. I agree that the article will be a lot better if the subjective wording is fixed. As for the sources, that’s my mistake – I didn’t look at the refs closely enough. I think this article can be kept, just fix the wording a little bit. Seanwk 🙂 ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. 🙂 Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Ningthemcha Since these are all from books that I can’t access, can you clarify if any of these books cover Thawānthābā in detail; like how many paragraphs of content does each book have on the topic? It’s not necessary that the book, chapter or even page be about him, so long as there is sufficient detail. Katzrockso (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t access any of the sources? Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katzrockso I think you can access the Internet Archive ones. But for one of the Google Books, A History of Manipuri Literature, I gathered like 42 lines from it. I cannot see the paragraph numbers as I cannot see the pages fully. However, I mainly got the texts from page 29-36. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just used “Thawānthābā” for the title because of how it is pronounced. With per respect, you need to put the name “Thawanthaba” to search in the other books. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn’t see there was an archive.org one. That one provides WP:SIGCOV, but I’m not sure if it’s a reliable source. I did see some other reliable sources that provide enough significant coverage ([1]), so I am going to !vote to keep. I’m afraid I am out of my depth here for evaluating Indian historical sources, though.

@Seanwk if you think this article should be kept, you should withdraw the nomination. I missed that earlier. Katzrockso (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Georges Marie de Noailles (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)

The article lacks significance. It only mentions his genealogy and that he was a member of the French nobility. In France, all titles were abolished in 1870. RobertVikman (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lithuanians (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)

The article has major flaws and strong indications that it is WP:FRINGE with a degree of WP:OR, see the long discussion here and in the talk pages. However, more importantly, there are no English WP:RS that describe the named concept or topic as such. The provided sources discuss similar or related historical aspects, but do not present the concept as defined by the article. Therefore, it fails WP:N i.e. the article should, at least, not exist under such title. —Mindaur (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. It surprises me that this nomination was made. During the discussion, many reliable sources, including English-language ones, were cited that clearly show this topic is notable. I don’t understand why @Mindaur is ignoring them. Works by Buchowski, Staliūnas, Bumblauskas, and others clearly demonstrate that this term and concept exist in historiography. The only thing that could be considered (and which I strongly support) is moving the article to the title Old Lithuanians and, of course, the necessary improvement of its content, since I agree that in its current form it is, in many places, quite poor. Marcelus (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please provide WP:RS that describe the topic as such, so we could WP:VERIFY? I mean, please be more specific, e.g. Bumblauskas wrote a lot of books, so it’s hard to tell what are you referring to. — Mindaur (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mindaur sure:

  • Alfredas Bumblauskas, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos paveldo “dalybos” ir “Litva/Letuva” distinkcijos konceptas, in: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos”, Vilnius 2008.
  • Alfredas Bumblauskas, Apie “starolitvinus”, senąją Lietuvą ir šiuolaikines tapatybes, in: Kintančios Lietuvos visuomenė: struktūros, veikėjai, idėjos, Vilnius 2015.
  • Alfredas Bumblauskas, Lietuvos Tūkstantmetis: dvi atmestos alternatyvos, “Lietuvos istorijos studijos”, vol. 23, 2009
  • Darius Staliūnas, “Senalietuviai” ir “jaunalietuviai” kaip analitinės kategorijos, apibūdinančios lenkų ir lietuvių konfliktą, “Lietuvos istorijos metraštis” 2015-16

  Marcelus (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcelus: Thank you. I reviewed the sources and have the following remarks:

  • Bumblauskas (2008): the “Old Lithuanians” and “New Lithuanians” (“jaunalietuviai” and “senalietuviai”) are first mentioned only in page 43 (out of 52 page article). It is mentioned distinctly in the context of the early 20th century Polish-Lithuanian conflict and the subsequent Polish–Lithuanian War, e.g. Taip pat reikia matyti jaunalietuvių–senalietuvių distinkciją ir konfliktą: pirmųjų koketavimą su bolševikais ir slaptuosius protokolus 1920 metų sutarty, o antrųjų siekį pagrįsti Lietuvos idėjos atsisakymą. The author points out the GDL / Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth legacy in this conflict, but that concerns the Polish–Lithuanian identity. Bumblauskas (2009): in about 30 page article, the “Old Lithuanians” are mentioned only in 3 pages; again, in the same context of the Polish-Lithuanian conflict in the early 20th century.
  • Bumblauskas (2015): I cannot get hold of this article right now, but I found [2] where the other author, Staliūnas, responds to the Bumblauskas’ article and provides a critique. It is evident that they continue discussing the term as distinctly applied to the said conflict in that narrow period, although they touch some other aspects and authors, including Buchowski’s proposed concept of “starolitwin”. Note: for the purposes of WP:RS, the three articles by Bumblauskas are considered as one source.
  • Staliūnas (2016): From the article’s conclusion: I’m arguing here that the notion Old Lithuanian appeared in the present-day scholarly literature without reasonable substantiation. Further, the author also adds: In summing up the article, it is pointed out that the notion Old Lithuanian might (though not necessarily) also have certain pejorative connotations, as it implies that modern Lithuanians are New Lithuanians, which may lead to the conclusion about a doubtful link between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and modern Lithuania. The points are generally consistent with Miknys & Staliūnas (2011) [3] source you provided earlier: At first sight the section of the conservative Lithuanian gentry which often referred to themselves as Lithuanians might be the most ideal representatives of the “Old Lithuanians.” However, <…> the main axis of the conflict lay between the modern Lithuanian movement and the modern Polish, primarily ND [ – National Democratic Party], national movement.

  My conclusion:

  • Nowhere in these articles the term “Old Lithuanians” is described in a way the current Wikipedia article Great Lithuanians does. Bumblauskas uses the term distinctly in the context of the prelude to the Polish–Lithuanian War, which is essentially different from the concept proposed by Buchowski; Miknys & Staliūnas argue against such concept (and term) in the first place.
  • From the sources you provided, there is no evidence that either of these concepts is established or widely accepted in the region’s historiography. At best, it’s a proposal (without even a consistent or agreed definition). Therefore, I am not convinced it meets WP:N criteria for a dedicated article.

  — Mindaur (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – poorly written article, per nom. +JMJ+ (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if not completely overhauled.

TL;DR: This article is a complete mess. It might be possible to write an acceptable article on “Old Lithuanians”, focusing specifically on the group active during the early 20th century who supported a Polish-aligned Lithuanian identity. However, the current article’s title, content, and sourcing have so many problems that it’s best to apply WP:TNT and start from scratch.

Longer explanation: There are basically three different understandings of the term “Great/Old Lithuanians”:

1. Inhabitants of Lithuania Major (Didžioji Lietuva), in contrast to inhabitants of the historically German-controlled region of Lithuania Minor (Mažoji Lietuva).
2. A group of Polish-speaking Lithuanian figures, active c. 1900, who supported a Polish-aligned Lithuanian national identity. They are defined in contrast to the “Young Lithuanians” who supported the Lithuanian National Revival, the revitalization of the Lithuanian language, and an independent Lithuanian state without ties to Poland.
3. The nobility of the former territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which over time adopted the Polish language and customs. Defined in opposition to the Lithuanian-speaking (“Samogitian”) peasants living within the same region who allegedly co-opted the “Lithuanian” national identity for themselves.

Note that the first definition is almost completely unrelated to the second and third definitions. The distinction between the second and third senses is more subtle, but has to do with framing. The article as presently written focuses very explicitly on the third definition.

Title: All of the relevant sources on definitions #2 and #3 that I have been able to access, whether written in Polish, Lithuanian, or English, use the term “Old Lithuanians”, not “Great Lithuanians”. To be more specific, Buchowski, Bumblauskas, and Staliūnas all use “Old Lithuanians”. The WP article cites the term “Great Lithuanians” to Łossowski (2005) (PDF). However, Łossowski actually uses the “Great Lithuanians” (Wielkolitwini) in sense #1 above, referring to Lithuanians living within historically Russian-controlled Lithuania Major in contrast to those living within historically German-controlled Lithuania Minor/Klaipėda Region. Quote: Mianem „Wielkolitwinów” określali Niemcy Litwinów z byłego zaboru rosyjskiego. Thus, the title “Great Lithuanians” is not supported by the current sources.

Sourcing: The article is largely sourced to Buchowski (2006) (PDF). Buchowski uses the term “Old Lithuanians” (starolitwini) four times in a book of 467 pages, one of which is in a footnote. Admittedly, the entire book is about this Polish-Lithuanian identity issue, but it feels like quite a stretch to take this term that he barely used and run with it in this way. In my reading, even Buchowski uses the term mostly in sense #2, referring to the specific disputes in the early 20th century. (He does have some #3 stuff in there, claiming that the “Samogitians” co-opted the “Lithuanian” name for themselves.) Additionally, the article as presently written does not cite any Lithuanian-language sources at all, which seems like a major omission considering that the entire article is about conflicting notions of Lithuanian identity. This would naturally lead to a certain bias.

Content: The article arguably suffers from FRINGE or POV issues, as discussed at great length elsewhere. I don’t want to get into the details. As it is heavily based on Buchowski, it naturally adopts his POV and arguments, which are his own and should not necessarily be expressed in wikivoice. For example, calling ethnic Lithuanians “Samogitians” is not a very neutral framing.

Another issue is that, besides the lede section, huge swathes of the article’s body are almost translations of the source material. For example, the long paragraph starting with “In the Suwałki Governorate” is obviously closely based on the paragraph starting with “Jedynie na terenie guberni suwalskiej” on page 43 of Buchowski. The paragraph beginning with “Soon, however” is closely based on the paragraph beginning with “Jednak coraz” on page 45. There might be just enough changes for it not to count as a copyright violation, IDK. If I were a professor and a student submitted a paper with multiple long paragraphs like this that were lifted from the source and just somewhat reworded, I would probably warn them about plagiarism.

Conclusion As Mindaur’s review of various sources above shows, the term “Old Lithuanians” has been used in sense #2 in various Lithuanian-language sources, similarly to how Buchowski uses it. I think it might be possible to write an article on this specific sense. However, it would be a completely different article.

In the discussion on Talk:Lithuania proper, I suggested merging the content into the article Polish-Lithuanian identity, because there is a huge degree of overlap between these two concepts. However, after looking even deeper into the article and noticing all these other problems, I see no other solution than WP:TNT. There’s basically nothing worth salvaging here. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]