Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Substantive title

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No reliable sources in the article, nor could I find any. Another editor reasonably knowledgeable about these sorts of things has no idea what this is. The definition of "substantive title" does not satisfy WP:V (and is counter-intuitive to me: why would a substantive title be ceremonial?). Srnec (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article as I found it. The present text is a result of a revert back to August 2017. Srnec (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The concerns cited here for deletion are better grounds for editing than elimination. For instance, a "substantive title" is described in the article as "ceremonial" (in contrast to a "ruling" title, e.g., emperor, king), but perhaps "non-reigning" would be a clearer adjective (Prince of Orange" and Duke of Brabant were once the official titles of Continental rulers, yet are now the legal but "ceremonial" titles of certain kings' heirs apparent). Still, "substantive title" belongs to the same category as courtesy title, hereditary title, victory title, etc, as subsets of Titles that distinguish one type of title from another, historically or currently, used by royalty and aristocracy. Last February I began a still needed editing process by restoring to the article English usage from the way an editor found the term used in Flemish for Belgian titleholders. Article serves the useful purpose of clarifying that substantive titles are borne by one person at a time (e.g. "Charles, Prince of Wales", "The Grand Duke of Finland", the Duke of Kent), and thus carry both different meaning and rules than non-substantive titles, which are also legal but borne by all members of a certain class ("Prince Harry of Wales", "Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia", Prince Michael of Kent). Also, article's footnoted. FactStraight (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a reliable source for the current usage? Srnec (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:V. For current usage, "Traditionally the male members of the royal family are appointed a substantive title by the sovereign on their wedding day." and "The Queen’s will is considered final as is, the titles are considered substantive from the moment The Queen orders." In connection to the UK Royal family. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable sources. How do you know they didn't derive that meaning from Wikipedia? Srnec (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for current usage. The topic is widely covered in British government sources published before Wikipedia was founded. For example [1] [2] in connection to the Earl of Durham. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I think the nom has just not understood what the article is about. The British part of the article is accurate. I expect that sources can be found such as Burke's or Debret's peerages. The converse of substantive is courtesy, which never conferred any rights (save exceptionally). I am less familiar with German usage, but think that is also correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.