Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà : The article is largely a very dubious exercise in claiming titles defunct since the Middle Ages.  Main 'scholarly' source is an article at the Social Science Research Network that does not appear to have been published in academic journals and thus not subject to peer review.  Constantine ✍ 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As noted, the only substantive source here is effectively self-published.  Nor does there appear to have been any interest in reliable sources of the holders in pretense to a title that has been irrelevant since the mid-15th century.  Lubal ( talk ) 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Respectfully, why do you view this as dubious?  There are many articles, of various descendants, of various Houses on WP.  This is no different, and as a researcher of this particular area of history, Frankokratia and the Principality of Achaea, it absolutely seemed appropriate for there to be an article created, especially after seeing that a recent case study was written about the topic.  As to your other points, a good portion of the paper discusses the claims of the extinct Italian Tocco family until 1933, with the death of its last claimant, less than one hundred years ago, so this is not something that hasn't been thought about since the middle ages as you said but it has been present almost until WWII.  The case study that you mentioned was in fact picked up by the "Legal History eJournal," curated by a known professor at Yale University, Reva Siegel of the Law School.  I would not have used this source if it appeared that a trusted expert had not laid eyes on it as I fully know and understand the rules of WP.  Thanks.  Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Eugene de Moree ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] The article itself is about a non-notable person, whose biographical details occupy a handful of lines and are nothing extraordinary.  Most of the content is about the titles, rather than their current presumed holder.  This might be OK for a blog article, not an encyclopedia.  On the various articles about various descendants of nobility, yes, they exist, but then the descendants are notable, or at least the titles are notable; the pretender to the throne of France is of a different order of notability than the Damalades.  Wikipedia also has deleted articles for nobles who did not satisfy criteria for notability, even from royal houses, cf.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark .  The most important problem with the rest of the article is that it makes unsupported claims.  Assuming the lineage is correct (which is always a big if with genealogy, especially the Zaccaria-Damalas connection, I have had quite a few battles over this over at the Damalas talk page), at one point one of his ancestors had the title 'King and Despot of Asia Minor', which was a one-off symbolic award without any real substance, as Asia Minor was lost to the Turks at the time.  The article makes the casual reader think that this title had substance, through the entirely erroneous and unsupported assertion that Martino did control a sizable portion of the defined boundaries of this Kingdom, he did not control it in its entirety...reclaim the said territories , which is patently false as soon as you look upon a map and compare Chios, Phocaea, and Smyrna to the rest of Asia Minor.  Furthermore, I am not aware of any Damalas-Zaccaria claim to the title of Prince of Achaea , in contrast to the well attested Tocco claim.  Whether the Tocco had the right or not, they laid claim; the Damalades, who for most of the period were an obscure Chiot family, did not.  The article suggests that these titles are claimed by 'Prince Constantine' by virtue of descent, but whether he knows or is interested in such a claim is uncertain; the phrasing of the article is almost teleological, but thin on evidence on that matter.  It is not for Wikipedia's users to award him these titles because of Salic (or any other) law, or making judgments based on the observed dynastic succession .  This is the essence of WP:NOR .  If this person makes these claims and if these are recognized by independent authorities (i.e., not someone who was paid for the job), and if this claim, or any other of his actions, attract notability sufficient to satisfy our criteria, then he is to be included here.  Constantine ✍ 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not sure how being heir to the patrimony of this historic family is not noteworthy in its own right.  Not to mention the close relations to the last members of the Byzantine imperial family through blood and marriage.  As a historian, I would absolutely say that this is worth people being able to read about.  Perhaps make some corrections, sure, but this should be out there, and this is why I created the page after finding the very valuable case study.  I do think that you may have some misunderstanding on what I wrote about Martino though, because the Lordship of Chios (which I linked in the text) was more than Chios and Phocaea.  So I am not sure how one could think that I was being misleading.  Martino's kingly title was titular in nature, yes, but a high hereditary  honour nonetheless.  Actually, the fact that it was not attached to an actual fief means that it's transmission to descendants is cleaner than that of other royal titles that were attached to territories that are now lost.  It is one of the very few instances in history where the title of king has been given as a titular honour, and therefore would legally remain fully intact today.  Just these few things are notable.  Lastly, the case study plainly states that Constantine knows about his patrimonial inheritance.  It also says the strict method of ascertaining the proven  genealogical connection.  The fact that you thought otherwise leads me to believe that you did not fully read the study.  Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 17:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Furthermore, all the information about Constantine Zaccaria Damala is taken from "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea".  “The handful of lines” is because I am not in a position to know further insights about this person apart from what is already written in this particular article.  Also, personal information can be found in the new publication of the Annuario, on the page discussing the history of house Zaccaria-Damalas, and was sent to me through mail.  The Annuario does not approve nobility status without a rigid reflection first.  Obviously, the British Royal family members have a greater degree of notability than each member of the house Zaccaria-Damala.  Still, this article is about the Head of the House, not a brother, sister, cousin, or a distant relative and certainly, this is NOT the first case of a noble in WP with only a handful of information to adorn his/her page.  The few insights provided (parents, wife, place, date of birth) do not mean this person doesn’t exist.  Martino indeed controlled Chios, Phocaea, and half of the city of Smyrna for some time, the titular imperial couple of the Latin Empire recognized this sovereignty.  The diploma was granted in 1324 and Martino lost Chios in 1329, certainly, the Kingdom that Emperor Philip and Empress Catherine envisioned and for which they even crafted a crown and appropriate regalia was one where Chios, etc were included.  This is why I linked the page Lordship of Chios to the chapter of the article.  If you read the diploma -I linked it to the page references- you shall see that the imperial Latin couple of Naples are especially specific on what they offer to Martino and that this is very true and not a vague idea.  The article makes it clear that after the mid-15th century, the Zaccaria-Damalas family did not openly claim the title of the Prince of Achaea, and the title was monopolized by house Tocco (where in the article I mention that the post-1469 Zaccarias held the title?), though it concludes that with the extinction of the Tocco line in 1933, the senior descendant of house Damalas (for reasons analyzed in detail by the author) can rightfully claim the title now that is vacant for decades.  “not someone who was paid for the job”  These accusations are concerning and it is more useful to be avoided as they are potentially directed against an academic of Yale University and a researcher for whom we know nothing in order to insult them this way and are not present in the undergoing discussions to support their thesis.  Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The study is interesting, but it is not WP:RS as it has not undergone peer review.  I have perused it, and though it states that Constantine Paul Damalas is interested and took steps to verify his descent and lineage, that's about it.  The very abstract of the study is clear IMO: "This study delves into the intricate succession landscape surrounding the medieval title of Prince of Achaea...its theoretical rehabilitation in favor of the Damalas descendants of the Zaccaria Princes of Achaea", and this is reinforced later on "since the current claim that is available to Constantine Paul Damalas" (p. 98).  I.e., this study is an examination of descent and possible claims under a legal perspective, and nothing more.  The assignation of these titles as is done in the article is yet to be established.  Plus, as I have stated in a different discussion we had, this cannot be seriously considered a WP:RS without the actual study to examine and verify.  My reference to being paid for something is exactly on this, as the study was clearly commissioned by someone, and not undertaken in the interests of scholarly research (MyHeritage is not an academic institution, but a fee-based service).  Taking an uncharitable view, this is no different than all the medieval upstart monarchs who paid some scholar to 'discover' links to the ancient Greeks, Romans, or Jews.  As a lot of the argument hinges on this study, color me unconvinced.  But the veracity or not of the claim is indeed somewhat beside the point: the article simply does not establish notability of the subject per WP:NBASIC .  Constantine ✍ 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree on upstart monarchs conducting fraudulent discoveries, still Annuario della Nobiltà holds some very strict requirements on accepting new houses to be included on its pages and there's no way to grant nobility status without extensive research.  As there is a scientific committee conducting independent research.  The paper of Stornaiolo Silva cites Annuario and makes it clear that the aristocratic status of Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà has been approved.  The Annuario would thoroughly examine her work and would not publish it if she could not provide the extensive proof that they require.  The MyHeritage chart seems like a simplification of her research to help the reader have all the genealogical information in one file.  I think there is even a small degree of notability through Annuario and "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" and the little information available is not against the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia.  Especially when we are dealing with members of old dynasties lost in history, usually, we have scarce information known, but that doesn't stop many editors from actually establishing a small article about them with four or five lines.  The paper states clearly that Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà is actively pursuing the princely title since 2023.  Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 19:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Annuario della Nobiltà still hasn't published the newest version that is referenced in the article though, so verification remains an issue...  And again, the veracity of descent is one thing, the active pursuit of the nobiliary claim another, and notability a third.  The deletion request is based on notability, not of the family or the title, but of the holder.  Even complete frauds like Peter Mills or Eugenio Lascorz have some wider presence in scholarly literature, which attests to their notability.  Here we have no information other than this person exists, and that from a non-RS.  Constantine ✍ 20:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your concern regarding proof of inclusion in the Annuario.  For the same reason, I reached out to the author of the case study to see proof of this when writing this article.  He produced this proof in the form of a PDF, which is an extract from the Annuario's database and is exactly how the pages will appear in the next edition.  I received this as well as an email where the editor confirmed the successful review of all documentation and approval for publication.  I can readily provide the same proof that was provided to me.  As I mentioned in several other comments, being the head/senior heir of this lineage is historically notable in itself.  There are many examples on WP where this is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but a few examples would be: "Princess Vittoria of Savoy", "Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto", and "Joachim, Prince of Pontecorvo."  All of these either have little biographical information, nothing truly noteworthy besides the noble lineage that they come from, or both.  Furthermore, none are heads of their respective Houses either, unlike Constantine.There are many, many more on WP, and if really necessary, I will share more.  I should hope that this is strong enough reasoning to conclude that notability shouldn't be an issue here, and the only way that it could be would be to pick favorites.  We should be encouraging the coverage of all history, not only the mainstream and I know that you agree with that.  It would be one thing if this person had some ridiculous imaginary Order of Knighthood or was granting bogus titles, but as explicitly mentioned in the case study, he nor his family have ever done anything of the sort nor they claim to be "the last Palaiologoi alive" and I found that refreshing and worthy of recording/highlighting their respectable patrimony for others to read.  The thing is, an argument for his notability would have been more legitimate if he had "granted bogus titles", because then there would be press about his actions.  The fact of the matter is he has not done anything worthy of note, especially in regard to this noble family that he is supposedly the head of.  It doesn't matter if you find it "refreshing" and "worthy of recording". .  it hasn't been "recorded" by legitimate independent sources.  He is not notable.  Virtue is not a credential for establishing notability.  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One thing that I will agree with you on, is that there needs to be an explicit mention that Constantine claims his hereditary inheritance. It is clear from the study that he is interested, but it doesn't explicitly state that he is claiming it. I don't think this is a reason to delete the article, but it is reason enough to reword it to reflect this current understanding. Actually in the article one can find much more information about this case, that I did not added at the current WP article, but now that I rethink of it, I should have. These will boost the notability of this person as they include information that prove that this "Achaean case" is too singular to be ignored. Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only thing that could establish notability of this person would be reliable, independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of any kind of notability.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As someone interested in late Frankokratia, I welcomed the addition of previously unknown information on the topic.  Just as with other defunct countries, if there are heirs living to this day, then it is definitely notable and this page should ex as the articles of other heirs doist.  Also, I would like to add that perhaps editors responding here should take the time to read the entire case study as I have done, since all the points against this article are not accurate or true.  This reis is longer than the time it took some to reply here.  Alfor tome to so say that there is no notability of any kind is absurd, and likely anti-monarchist biaOtherwise, one would have to delete all pages on the topic of heirs.  s.  Laurelius ( talk ) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Laurelius ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] I can assure you I have no "anti-monarchist bias" as I have created hundreds of articles on royal and noble persons.  But I see no notability established within this article.  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not referring to you, but the user that only wrote that it was not notable. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Laurelius ( talk ) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not meet WP:GNG . -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources .  Celia Homeford ( talk ) 08:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been included in the Yale ejournal and has been curated by an academic of the university.  I contacted the author of the article before establishing the page and he mailed me that this article is going to be published as a book in the near future with a greater decree of information available about the topic.  He mentioned that the publisher is an active one in the academic field.  By what I understood, the book will be concluded in the next months.  Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Things may change in the future.  But right now , "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" appears to be only on SSRN, which is considered a self-published source here (it's a pre-print archive with no peer review), and as far as I can tell, no edition of Annuario della Nobiltà supporting this article's claims has actually been published yet.  If that comes out, and "Achaean Disputes" gets publication in a book with reliable editorial oversight, it may be appropriate to revisit this.  Also, keep in mind that "notable" is a term of art at Wikipedia; just because something is "not notable" in Wikipedia's sense doesn't mean it isn't interesting or even important , just that it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion.  Lubal ( talk ) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is certainly not self published https://www.ssrn.com/link/legal-history.html , the professor reviewed and agreed that it was worthy of posting in her eJournal at Yale.  Also Annuario is going to be published this November and its content is most likely finished thus it's hard to imagine that an author whose working with Yale University would use references from the Annuario without having access to the text.  Also the genealogical research of Ms Souli has been approved by the committee of Annuario as they informed me. I understand your concerns and I share some of them.  My proposal is for the article to remain but it must be heavily edited as its current form is problematic.  More personal nformation about Constantine Zaccaria Damalà should be added (taken from the "Achaean Disputes, one can find more there) while the passages discussing the titles of this person should be reduced. If in the next months the research of Stornaiolo Silva is not published as a book with academic editorial oversight and the publication of Annuario makes no mention of the protagonist of this case, then I will nominate it for deletion myself. Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The deletion nomination discussion is happening now, because sources do not exist. If sources are created after the deletion, then you could re-write the article. But as it stands now, this subject is not notable in any way. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I concur with some of the previous voters. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, no matter where they are published. Keivan.f Talk 13:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - scion of a country that hasn't existed for hundreds of years is not the allegation of notability that a few folks think it is. Otherwise, hundreds of people would be notable . Bearian ( talk ) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How many people do you know are senior agnates/legal heirs to any former sovereign state? Even if there were hundreds, compared to over eight billion people, that's rather notable. It is one thing to argue that it doesn't meet WP guidelines, sure, but let's not be ridiculous. Royal and even noble families routinely die out in the legitimate male line, and that is the rule, not the exception. When there are extant families, the only relevant person is the senior heir if we're being honest with ourselves. Sorry to be so blunt, but some of the comments need stay in reality instead of becoming emboldened by the scales of opinion here. Laurelius ( talk ) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thankfully, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are not established by who we do or don't know. If he were notable, he would have been written about. No one here is sharing personal opinions on the matter.. we are simply reminding you of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally understood, this is about WP guidelines. I think the disconnect here is that WP's idea for notable is not the same as in reality/everyday life. The actual definition of notable is: "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable," and the definition of remarkable is: "worthy of attention; striking. " If you were to go to a party, and someone pointed out that the individual of this discussion was there, and disclosed the facts about them, it would absolutely be remarkable and striking because it is not something "run-of-the-mill" as one commenter erroneously tried to suggest, it's very rare to come across. If he has been a private individual, you wouldn't find much on him, but it doesn't reduce the fact that his existence is infact notable. I can respect that WP can do whatever it wants with its guidelines/rules, and I respect the very successful platform that has been built, but let's at least acknowledge the glaring difference of what the dictionary/humans says notable is, and what WP says it is, even if only for the sake of helping newer users understand this and not polarize discussions. We don't have be androids about it when you're not speaking to an android at the other end of the keyboard. That is just my two cents, and I'm sure it will be met by some technical, rule based response, which will completely miss my point just like the other points made here, but that's okay. Laurelius ( talk ) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Annuario has already confirmed this person as a noble and head of house Zaccaria Damalà. It is only a matter of time until it's published and I have the full reference so to use it in WP and I will! I've made contact with them before making the article as it would have been absurd to establish an article without further knowledge of the situation. Actually house Damalas Zaccaria has a confirmed connection to the rulling families of Byzantine Empire (house Kantakouzenos, Asen, Palaiologos) and of course the Principality of Achaea-Morea and its nobility status is not something debatable (also confirmed by Annuario). Eugene de Moree ( talk ) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He is not notable. The Annuario does not establish WP:GNG . If he does not meet the GNG guidelines, he is not notable. If it is "only a matter of time", then you can wait to write the article again.  As it stands now, there are no credible, independent sources that establish his notability.  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete