Talk:Princess Camilla, Duchess of Castro

Notability

Again, a topic created where no individual notability exists. The Duchess would best be discussed at her husband's article. What as she done which makes her notable? Charles 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Notability guideline never uses the phrase "individual notability". Nor does it say anything about somebody doing or accomplishing something. After all, some people are just famous for being famous. The guideline says that a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is certainly the case for Donna Camilla, a lady whose sense of style has garnered much attention. It is not uncommon for the spouses of important individuals to have their own Wikipedia articles in cases where the spouses have received significant attention in the press; consider Laureen Harper (to use a Canadian example) whose greatest claim to fame (other than her relationship with Stephen Harper) seems to be that she "offers her home to the SPCA as a foster home for kittens, and in her spare time enjoys riding her motorcycle." I think that Donna Camilla can beat that. ;) Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does not address her sense of style whatsoever. I know there are people who are famous for being famous and they may or may not become known for something else (their fame serves as a conduit for other notable bits and pieces), but the Duchess, as she is written of now, is entirely non-noteworthy other than the fact that her husband is the Duke of Castro. I would love to see this significant coverage for the Duchess. If she is notable only for being some man's wife then she should be relegated to his article for now. Laureen Harper, ugh... She should probably be deleted. This place sometimes seems like the newyorksocialdiary.com than anything else! God forbid I started writing articles on some of my Newport friends, who have received a LOT of news coverage, national and international! ;) Charles 03:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article has no notability. All the references are to the websites of the Order headed by her husband. This article needs deletion. I will leave this comment here for a while. In the meantime I have removed an entirely unreferenced section, probably added by the subject herself. Hunc (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here I have converted this article to a redirect to her husband Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. Hunc (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And again, following reversion by an IP who geolocates to the same area as those making previous laudatory expansions. Hunc (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I also support the redirect; but in the face of an IP editor with vehement opposition, feel a formal merge proposal is necessary. Discussion per rule is on the target page, Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely does not meet any notability requirements, and I'm sceptical the husband does either CaribbeanTruth (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this discussion. I came across Princess Camilla, Duchess of Castro on this list provided by the Royald Edit-a-Thon for WikiProject Women in Red. While some sources are basically tabloids ([1]), she does appear to be quite active in philanthropy ([2]) and works with UN Women for Peace ([3]). Thoughts on reopening a discussion about writing an article? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as no one replied to my comment back in June, I had reorganized the article and provided reliable sources. Hunc seemed to think it's acceptable to turn this page into a redirect without any kind of consensus. It's not. You can nominate it for AFD if you feel so strongly. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree I think she is notable enough for her own article. She does get press coverage as you’ve noted, including recently in coverage of the wedding of her nephew Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoleon. - dwc lr (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have lost the earlier consensus on the non-notability of this subject. To remind everyone, she is the daughter of a dubious claimant to a nonexistent and invalid throne, who has basically made up his own order of knighthood to boost his importance. I still feel that this article is appropriate not for an encyclopedia but only for the gossipy sources that it uses - most of them are organizations whose main purpose seems to be awarding these sparkly gewgaws in attempts to validate each other. Their main talent is self-publicity. The list of low-grade sparklies is definitely inappropriate for any article at all. Hunc (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a correction: She is not the daughter of the pretender of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro). She is his wife and consort. She is the daughter of actress Edy Vessel. Most pretenders and their consorts have Wikipedia articles, not that it sets a standard. As I mentioned above, and included in the article, she has been an active philanthropist through notable organizations such as the United Nations, which establishes a degree of notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, wife not daughter, sorry. Nevertheless, I'd judge her to be not notable; leaving that to one side for the moment because there's clearly now no consensus on returning the article to a redirect, which of the various honours do you now think are notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in this article? Hunc (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies for the split discussions, as the reopening of this notability discussion has coincided with new page patrol's peer-review efforts. I would urge you to consider the comments we've made in the section below, as I and other new page reviewers seem to have each arrived at the conclusion that the article's sources have insufficient independent coverage to meet notability guidelines. As for the specific argument regarding UN involvement, UN Women for Peace appears to be a charity that raises money for the UN and was started by a former UN Secretary General's wife, but it does not appear to itself be a UN project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

COI editing

I notice that Lilly85 has made laudatory edits that speak of the subject in the first person. These edits were also unreferenced. I have put a COI tag on the page and a standard warning on Lilly85's talk page. Hunc (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

New page patrol peer review cohort comment

Interesting case. It appears that no less than eight New Page Reviewers (including me) have had a crack at this in more or less its current form, and it looks to me as if about half have signed off on the article, the other half on the redirect. Personally I'm in the redirect camp, but with discussion restarted on the talk page, I wouldn't revert back to that now. Onel5969, just wondering what your assessment here is regarding prevalence of inherited notability? I'm finding many of these "famous spouse but does some glamour charity" subjects quite difficult. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elmidae - occasionally I look back at something I've done (which is why I like the cohort stuff going on) and say WTF was I thinking? This is clearly an example of inherited notability. Since I was last to review, am going to throw it back into the queue. Most likely should be a redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing independent coverage in reliable sources here, which places me in the redirect camp. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Same, I'm more inclined toward a redirect. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)