Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess of Sussex


 * 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 keep. There is consensus that this subject is a distinct notable topic that satisfies our guidelines for an article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Duchess of Sussex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is really no reason for this to be a separate article. There has only ever been one holder of the title, and the content of the article merely replicates the content of the articles Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Duke of Sussex. In addition, much of the article deals with what is explicitly not within its defined scope, i.e. women who were not duchesses of Sussex. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Convert to a dab-page - The material in this article on Lady Augusta Murray should be merged into that article.  and the article on the second (morgamatic) wife of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex could also usefully be listed, even though neither had the title, due to non-compliance with the Royal Marriages Act, they might be searched for as Duchesses.  Perhaps a better outcome would be to rename this to Duchess of Sussex (disambiguation) and re-create the present name as a redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, with a "otherpersons" capnote leading to the dabpage.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. wow that was a quick deletion proposal. Just kidding. I think there is enough content to have it as a stand alone article. cookie monster  (2020)  755  17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to not retain the page, it should redirect to Meghan. cookie monster  (2020)  755  18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B41A:93B5:519F:A15D (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The focus here is on the title rather than the current holder of that title.  "Duchess of Sussex" is a novel style with a history & context, and that title deserves encyclopedic mention.  It could use (1) an update since Jan 2020 when the Duke and Duchess withdrew from the royal family, losing the use of "HRH" but retaining the right to it (2) clarity about whether "Duchess of Sussex" is now a royal courtesy title or a noble courtesy title (3) a few words and a link to the relevant authority over such titles and styles, presumably within the College of Arms, with Her Majesty the ultimate authority of course.  This particular strange case reveals a lot about how these titles are given and taken away.  --Lockley (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it cannot really be "novel with a history", can it? :) I do not see evidence of significant coverage of the topic; the title of the duke's wife is never discussed independently from the dukedom itself. All three of your points apply to Duke of Sussex just as much, and there is no reason to duplicate the information when all of it concerns a single dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite WP:NINHERITED, this appears like an article consistent with other ones for British royalty titles (eg. Duchess of Cambridge) and I see no reason why this one would be any less notable than the others (and the points Lockley makes are also quite convincing): at the very least, nominator could have considered WP:ATD and could have suggested a redirect as this is a valid search term to its so far only holder. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course a redirect is a possibility. That is what this discussion is supposed to establish. Other stuff exists, such as Duchess of Cambridge article. Similarly to this article, that topic that does not need an article separate from Duke of Cambridge. There is no significant coverage of either title independently from the article about the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, as we've got Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of York etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand the nom, however, upon reading the article I found it informative regarding the history of the title and even the non-use of it is of note (and per the refs, it is chronicled in reliable sources).  Can't see a reason not to keep what is a well written and informative article, and per others articles on other British titles such as Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Cornwall, and Duchess of York etc. Britishfinance (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see how you could have drawn that conclusion from the references, Britishfinance; only one out of the 10 references mention the term "Duchess of Sussex" and even that one is in reference to Meghan Markle rather than the title itself. That none of the ten references contain anything about the title Duchess of Sussex says a lot about the notability of the topic. The same is true for the articles Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Cornwall, and Duchess of York; they too are original research compilations with no sources to demonstrate notability or, worse yet, verify the content. Besides, citing the existence of some other articles as reason to keep another article does not contribute anything to the discussion. As WP:WHATABOUTX says, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist". Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A google search of "Duchess of Sussex" "Lady Augusta Murray" or "Duchess of Sussex" "Cecilia Underwood", gives plenty of references (more in Google books) regarding the fact that these two women did not become a formal "Duchess of Sussex". A google search of "Who Was The Duchess Of Sussex Before Meghan Markle", gives more refs discussing the history of the title, such as here, here.  I do think that this is of interest to readers and per NEXIST, there are plenty of references discussing the history of the title and why it was not used.  I can't see the reason to delete or redirect this information (which so others have written about). Even Quora (not an RS) have: Who was the first Duchess of Sussex?. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not call 10 hits "plenty of references", especially when all of them repeat one fact alone: that the two women were not duchesses of Sussex. We can probably agree that a piece with the phrase "Shady As Heck" is not reliable (thus failing WP:GNG). Washington Post is impeccable but it does not discuss the title Duchess of Sussex; rather it is about the history of the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.