Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consorts of Hispania


 * 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   delete. While this may look like a close debate, the delete opinionators (is that a word?) has far stronger arguments than the keep opinionators, and as such, this is to be deleted. ( X! ·  talk )  · @186  · 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Consorts of Hispania

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It has no reliable sources. The term "Consort of Hispania" is completely unknown outside Wikipedia. The listed women were either the wives of Visigothic kings (and can be listed as such beside their husbands at Visigoths if need be) or the consorts of those who claimed the title Imperator Hispaniae (and can be listed at that article). Srnec (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Srnec. This article not only is utterly unsourced but it is one more example of people trying to invent new concepts ans historical "realities", it's total POV and OR. It should be deleted. The Ogre (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per Ogre. Tikiwont (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - If List of Portuguese consorts and other similar articles qualify for inclusion then this does too, although it should be cleaned up and sourced. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But Portugal actually had queens consort. Hispania never did: the article is fabricating a historical concept. The queens of the Goths were not "consorts of Hispania" and the empresses (how many actually used that title?) neither. The term "consort of Hispania" is barbarous in the context. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - hard to see what's the problem in keeping? The institution/category of royal consorts is significant and there is a distinction between Spain as a unified kingdom and Spain as a collection of kingdoms and caliphates (Castilla, Navarra, Aragon, Granada, etc.) Opbeith (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Royal consorts are not always significant. Should we have articles on all the wives in Solomon's harem? Your distinct Spains have nothing to do with this (and there was no unified Spain during the time of the empresses). All that is true in this list belongs elsewhere (as I noted in my deletion rationale), leaving nothing left for here. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment a list of spouses of rulers of Spain may be relevant, but at the least, the article needs to be retitled.   DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment for the ones saying "keep": I believe you are confusing the List of Spanish consorts (that's the one you can parallel with the List of Spanish monarchs or List of heads of state of Spain; List of Portuguese consorts and List of Portuguese monarchs, List of Aragonese consorts and List of Aragonese monarchs; List of Asturian consorts and List of Asturian monarchs; List of Castilian consorts and List of Castilian monarchs; List of Galician monarchs; List of Leonese consorts and List of Leonese monarchs; List of Navarrese consorts and List of Navarrese monarchs) with this invented and non-sourced list of the consorts of Hispania (and using this word in quite different historical meanings! Either as refering to the Visigothic Kingdom or to the non-directely sucessor Imperator totius Hispaniae). I maintain a Strong Delete. The Ogre (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I created this article mainly to show the consorts of the rulers of the Iberian Penisula (Hispania) and the wives of Spanish Emperors. I'm not too strongly opposed to deleting it.  But wouldn't it be better to split this up to a List of Gothic queens (including the antiquity, Denmark, and Sweden; the last two were titular), and dropping the Empress of All Spains and relinking them to Imperator totius Hispaniae?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see Empress of Spain and no Gothic queens. I am certain that some of the consorts of the emperors used the title empress, but I cannot recall if the wives of the elected Visigothic monarchs ever bore the title queen. Either way, I don't think we need a separate article for whatever valid information is in the current one. Srnec (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The consorts of the Visigothic monarchs should be mentioned, if they are not already, in their respective articles (of the monarchs, that is). Regarding the title Empress of Spain, which one of the consorts of the emperors used the title? I would rather see it as a redirect to Imperator totius Hispaniae and the info placed there. The Ogre (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree on both counts. I am intending to add a section on the title empress/imperatrix to the imperator article. The Chronica Adefonsi imperatoris uses the title of Berengaria of Barcelona, there is one cartulary copy of a charter referring to Queen Urraca as totius hispaniae imperatrix, and I believe Sancha of León was also called empress (as consort). We have to be very careful, however, that we let the scholars interpret the meaning of these sorts of things and do not do it ourselves. Srnec (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree! The Ogre (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Srnec's excluding the Visigothic and Ostrogothic queens. Many accounts refered to them as queens. I know Goiswintha was because beside being a wife of a king, she had a great power in the country at the time.  There were more gothic queens then their were Empresses of Spain. All monarchies were elective during the early Middle Age, so does it mean there weren't Frankish queens or Burgundian queens? I believe they deserve their own article. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In his Chronicon John of Biclarum styled Goisuintha "queen" (regina) under the years 579 and 589. The wife of Reccared I subscribed to the canons of the Third Council of Toledo as "I, Baddo, glorious queen" (ego Baddo, gloriosa regina). There are three published studies on the Gothic queens:
 * José Orlandis Rovira, "La reina en la monarquía visigoda", Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español 27–8 (1957–58): 109–35.
 * E. García Zueco, "Una aproximación a la figura de la Reina visigoda", Memorana, II (1998).
 * Amancio Isla Frez, "Reinas de los godos", Hispania 64 (2004).
 * You should track these down and create an article Queen of the Visigoths or something like that. Explain what it meant to be a queen of the Visigoths and then provide a list of names and dates. This would be far superior to what we have. The empresses can (and will, soon I hope) be included at the article on the imperial title. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (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.