This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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)
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 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)