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. The arguments to keep are generally somewhat weak, but some SIGCOV has been shown, and we can't discount it simply because it concerns things that wouldn't be covered in non-royalty. My personal inclination is to delete, but there's consensus to keep here. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Once again, British royals, especially when younger, have major coverage in the media. He will also one day be Duke of Kent, one of the pre-eminent titles of the British aristocracy (we have not yet, I believe, deleted any article about a duke). --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)reply
"have major coverage in the media". This needs to be demonstrated - the article certainly does not do so. Also, note that trivial coverage like two-three sentences that "Noble/royal ex. had a child or got married or divorced", which I expect we could find a few if we dug through newspaper archives, are trivial and don't meet
WP:SIGCOV. Was he the subject of multiple, in-depth newspaper pieces? As for whether Dukes are auto-notable, please quote a relevant policy, and if they are, well, we can revisit this WHEN he becomes a duke. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here03:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Piecesofuk I have reviewed the 10 pages work. It's not exactly 10 pages (there are illustrations taking some space, and the font is big and there's lot of empty spaces), but that's a technicallity. Arguably, this source may meet
WP:SIGCOV, good find, although it's just one. GNG requires multiple such sources. Can you point out another one that satisfies SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Articles consisting only of family history fail
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Consequently, newspaper coverage about genealogical topics is immaterial to notability. The only content that is not genealogical, the succession issues, is unsourced. Members of a royal family are not automatically notable, see
WP:MONARCH. Sandstein 10:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am going to relist this one due to the ongoing discussion between Piecesofuk and Piotrus. However, I almost closed this as a delete due to the weakness of everyone but Piecesofuk's keep contribution. I would like to remind editors that
notability is not inherited. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
GuerilleroParlez Moi10:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Maybe TOOSOON? 41st in line to the crown isn't notable, maybe when his father dies and he assumes the full title he'd be better for GNG. Anything this far down the peerage is essential just another rich Joe with a fancy title. I mean he has to pass GNG, but I don't see anything he's done that another same/similar person does, marries, attends Mass, rather routine stuff. He hasn't invented cold fusion or something ground-breaking. Appears to have been chancellor of a university circa 2017, not sure how that colours the discussion.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I can never keep track of which title has which meaning in which system. The guideline mentions that this differs among countries, but maybe we should go more into specifics somewhere.
XOR'easter (
talk)
02:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I agree with the nominator that this gentlemen isn't automatically notable because of his royal relations. Yet, Piecesofuk has identified newspaper sources that seem to indicate he is perhaps more notable than other relatives. I'd suggest keeping for now and adding that information into the article.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
19:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Le sigh. Keep, I guess. Royalty are just influencers these days, but with a more ardent fan base. However, there are sources for notability. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Ceremonial post at a university and 41st in line for the throne aren't notable. I'd be willing to change my !vote if the man accomplished something/anything of note, rather than just going about his business. Did he found any notable philanthropic thing or start some renown festival? He just appears to sit on various boards/working groups, none of which are anything special. "Rich guy works with a charity" is how I'm reading what it boils down to.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete There is insufficient information about this subject in reliable sources to write a balanced article. There is also no presumed notability based on family or title. The title is actually curtesy, the subbstantial title belongs to his father. It would be better as a redirect to the royal family article.
TFD (
talk)
19:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with those above that simply being related to/a member of the royal family is not alone enough for notability. But I do think 'next in line to be Duke of Kent' is more than just being in the royal family, and there are a range of other roles here which strongly indicate notability. Being the chancellor of a university, for instance, is far from inconsequential, even if it is mostly ceremonial.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
11:30, 1 November 2022 (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.
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. The arguments to keep are generally somewhat weak, but some SIGCOV has been shown, and we can't discount it simply because it concerns things that wouldn't be covered in non-royalty. My personal inclination is to delete, but there's consensus to keep here. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Once again, British royals, especially when younger, have major coverage in the media. He will also one day be Duke of Kent, one of the pre-eminent titles of the British aristocracy (we have not yet, I believe, deleted any article about a duke). --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)reply
"have major coverage in the media". This needs to be demonstrated - the article certainly does not do so. Also, note that trivial coverage like two-three sentences that "Noble/royal ex. had a child or got married or divorced", which I expect we could find a few if we dug through newspaper archives, are trivial and don't meet
WP:SIGCOV. Was he the subject of multiple, in-depth newspaper pieces? As for whether Dukes are auto-notable, please quote a relevant policy, and if they are, well, we can revisit this WHEN he becomes a duke. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here03:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Piecesofuk I have reviewed the 10 pages work. It's not exactly 10 pages (there are illustrations taking some space, and the font is big and there's lot of empty spaces), but that's a technicallity. Arguably, this source may meet
WP:SIGCOV, good find, although it's just one. GNG requires multiple such sources. Can you point out another one that satisfies SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Articles consisting only of family history fail
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Consequently, newspaper coverage about genealogical topics is immaterial to notability. The only content that is not genealogical, the succession issues, is unsourced. Members of a royal family are not automatically notable, see
WP:MONARCH. Sandstein 10:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am going to relist this one due to the ongoing discussion between Piecesofuk and Piotrus. However, I almost closed this as a delete due to the weakness of everyone but Piecesofuk's keep contribution. I would like to remind editors that
notability is not inherited. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
GuerilleroParlez Moi10:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Maybe TOOSOON? 41st in line to the crown isn't notable, maybe when his father dies and he assumes the full title he'd be better for GNG. Anything this far down the peerage is essential just another rich Joe with a fancy title. I mean he has to pass GNG, but I don't see anything he's done that another same/similar person does, marries, attends Mass, rather routine stuff. He hasn't invented cold fusion or something ground-breaking. Appears to have been chancellor of a university circa 2017, not sure how that colours the discussion.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I can never keep track of which title has which meaning in which system. The guideline mentions that this differs among countries, but maybe we should go more into specifics somewhere.
XOR'easter (
talk)
02:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I agree with the nominator that this gentlemen isn't automatically notable because of his royal relations. Yet, Piecesofuk has identified newspaper sources that seem to indicate he is perhaps more notable than other relatives. I'd suggest keeping for now and adding that information into the article.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
19:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Le sigh. Keep, I guess. Royalty are just influencers these days, but with a more ardent fan base. However, there are sources for notability. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Ceremonial post at a university and 41st in line for the throne aren't notable. I'd be willing to change my !vote if the man accomplished something/anything of note, rather than just going about his business. Did he found any notable philanthropic thing or start some renown festival? He just appears to sit on various boards/working groups, none of which are anything special. "Rich guy works with a charity" is how I'm reading what it boils down to.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete There is insufficient information about this subject in reliable sources to write a balanced article. There is also no presumed notability based on family or title. The title is actually curtesy, the subbstantial title belongs to his father. It would be better as a redirect to the royal family article.
TFD (
talk)
19:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with those above that simply being related to/a member of the royal family is not alone enough for notability. But I do think 'next in line to be Duke of Kent' is more than just being in the royal family, and there are a range of other roles here which strongly indicate notability. Being the chancellor of a university, for instance, is far from inconsequential, even if it is mostly ceremonial.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
11:30, 1 November 2022 (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.