- 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 argument that the subject is notable as a member of a dynasty is weak, but that does not also weaken the argument that he meets GNG, and the sources provided in that respect have not been convincingly refuted. There was insufficient discussion with respect to whether merging this with his wife's bio is a viable option, but that's something that can be discussed at the article's talk page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1985)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1985) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject has lots of coverage. His marriage was covered by Vogue, Harpers' Bazaar, and Town & Country. When he and his wife were expecting a child, Vogue covered it. The birth of his twins made People, In Style, Hello Magazine, and Cosmo. He has an entry in the Bright Young Royals book and in Debrett's Peerage (second result down in Google snippet). There's a lot of coverage out there, and that's not including deprecated sources like Daily Mail. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- More on case for deletion The Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist when it was annexed by Prussia back in 1866. This person is not even a pretender to this throne, or likely to become one or head of the deposed family, since he has an older brother and a nephew. Even some claims about his place in the line of succession to the Hanoverian and British thrones looks dubious (see article and its talk page). Some of these sources look like trivial entries in reference works or gossip. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per points made by Kbabej. Subject has been the subject of press from credible sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip rag, and coverage that just exists in that level of articles is not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, @ Johnpacklambert: Per WP:RSPSOURCES, multiple sources in the ones I listed above are considered generally reliable (People, Vogue x2). While those publications can lean in the gossipy direction, these articles are on points of fact (marriage, births, etc), not speculation on who's dated who, etc. -- Kbabej ( talk) 19:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Senior member of a major royal dynasty. The fact that the throne itself no longer exists is neither here nor there. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Major royal dynasty? The
Kingdom of Hanover was an odd political entity which existed covering a limited area of northern Germany for a relatively short period, from 1814 to 1866. Up until 1837 it was in personal union with Great Britain. This Hanoverian royal family is a junior branch of the British royal family which only ruled Hanover as an independent entity for 29 years, and only produced two actual monarchs.
PatGallacher (
talk)
14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- As a kingdom it was indeed a major royal dynasty. Also a very well-known one, especially when ruled by the British Crown. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Major royal dynasty? The
Kingdom of Hanover was an odd political entity which existed covering a limited area of northern Germany for a relatively short period, from 1814 to 1866. Up until 1837 it was in personal union with Great Britain. This Hanoverian royal family is a junior branch of the British royal family which only ruled Hanover as an independent entity for 29 years, and only produced two actual monarchs.
PatGallacher (
talk)
14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Being (possibly) second in line to a position that has not existed for more than 150 years does not confer notability. Smeat75 ( talk) 12:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have attempted to excise the monarchy fancruft and other nonsense from the article. Whether "he got married and Vogue ran pictures of it" is enough for an article I leave to others. -- JBL ( talk) 21:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Per the reasons listed above by
Kbabej,
Willthacheerleader18, and
Necrothesp. --
West Virginian
(talk)
21:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't bother you that Necrothesp's "arguments" range from unconvincing to unambiguously false? If I wanted this article kept, that would bother me. --
JBL (
talk)
21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, good, another personal attack on my integrity. Presumably linked to the
one on my talkpage. This editor clearly has a bit of a vendetta and has decided to do a bit of stalking. Not sure why, given I'm not aware of having any knowledge of him whatsoever. Obviously someone else who is so convinced they're right and they're doing what's best for Wikipedia (unlike us other editors with differing opinions) that they won't brook any disagreement. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Evidently, in addition to repeatedly offering incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination, you also don't know what a personal attack is. --
JBL (
talk)
11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think that claiming an experienced editor's argument is "unambiguously false" is a clear attack on their integrity. As is alleging
incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination
. As is going to another editor's talkpage for no good reason and advising a completely univolved editor who was leaving a message on another topic thatI know nothing about this particular article or its broader subject, but having observed Necrothesp's comments at a number of recent AfDs and RMs, I would advise you to take statements like the one above with a grain of salt.
What would you call actions like this? As it says at the top of WP:NPA:Comment on content, not on the contributor.
However, I think I'm just going to shrug off your comments as an inability to accept a difference of opinion rather than take them any further. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)- "Your argument is false" is a comment on content, not on any contributor, likewise the other. By contrast, saying that I have "a bit of a vendetta" is a comment on me, not on any content. The statement that the subject of this article is a
[s]enior member of a major royal dynasty
is unambiguously false. Words have meanings. -- JBL ( talk) 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Your argument is false" is a comment on content, not on any contributor, likewise the other. By contrast, saying that I have "a bit of a vendetta" is a comment on me, not on any content. The statement that the subject of this article is a
- On the contrary, I think that claiming an experienced editor's argument is "unambiguously false" is a clear attack on their integrity. As is alleging
- Evidently, in addition to repeatedly offering incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination, you also don't know what a personal attack is. --
JBL (
talk)
11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, good, another personal attack on my integrity. Presumably linked to the
one on my talkpage. This editor clearly has a bit of a vendetta and has decided to do a bit of stalking. Not sure why, given I'm not aware of having any knowledge of him whatsoever. Obviously someone else who is so convinced they're right and they're doing what's best for Wikipedia (unlike us other editors with differing opinions) that they won't brook any disagreement. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that editor gets to proclaim "the fact that the throne itself no longer exists is neither here nor there." I think it is very much an issue. Having an encyclopedia article about someone just because they are (possibly) second in line to a throne abolished more than 150 years ago is utterly ridiculous imo. All this "deposed ruling family " fancruft needs to removed.
Smeat75 (
talk)
23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think I get to "proclaim" whatever I like when expressing an opinion on an AfD. Are you maybe actually suggesting I'm not entitled to an opinion that conflicts with yours? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't bother you that Necrothesp's "arguments" range from unconvincing to unambiguously false? If I wanted this article kept, that would bother me. --
JBL (
talk)
21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Kbabej. A lot of deletes and comments seem to be based on ignorance, for starters this family ceased to reign in 1918 (
Duchy of Brunswick) - -
dwc lr (
talk)
06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- So you're saying this guy was a prince of −67 years instead of −125? -- JBL ( talk) 12:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Had a look at this, the full story of this family's reign in the Duchy of Brunswick is complicated, but they only effectively ruled for a short time, 1913 to 1918. This article describes this guy as a Prince of Hanover, it is that on which his claim to notability is based. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with his wife's page. He's not notable on his own aside from having royal ancestry, and all current coverage as far as I can tell has been on his marriage or his children's birth, with the primary focus always on his lawyer-model-businesswoman wife Alessandra (2 of the 4 cited articles on the couple mention only her in the title). We regularly delete articles of women who are "noble" but whose only notability outside genealogy books is in relation to their husbands; this isn't any different.
JoelleJay (
talk)
16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- His wife is probably going to be deleted as well.
PatGallacher (
talk)
16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why. She is notable in her own right, and her article is well-sourced. --
Willthacheerleader18 (
talk)
17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was getting confused between his wife and his mother, but I still have some doubts about her notability. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why. She is notable in her own right, and her article is well-sourced. --
Willthacheerleader18 (
talk)
17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- His wife is probably going to be deleted as well.
PatGallacher (
talk)
16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The question is not whether the throne of Hannover is defunct or whether we like articles that has some genealogical issues about it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be able to provide articles about every major topic that is of interest to humanity or at least some part of the human society in the world, and for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson ( talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia - if they don't "still occupies a throne" they are not royal families. Let those that "have a keen interest" in such fantasies satisfy them somewhere else than this encyclopedia.
Smeat75 (
talk)
02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, this seem rather couterproductive and out of touch with the real world - I would even suspect that you by a statement like that wish in advance to exclude certain topics from Wikipedia, regardless of the interest in this topic and the notability of particular articles - or is it merely anti-royalist sentiments, that sets your standards for judging articles like this??
Oleryhlolsson (
talk)
06:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
out of touch with the real world
No, though that does seem like a good description of calling someone born in 1985 a "Prince of Hannover". -- JBL ( talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)-
step into the real world, then safely come back to the bosom of Wikipedia. -
dwc lr (
talk)
12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Um, sure, whatever you say. -- JBL ( talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
-
step into the real world, then safely come back to the bosom of Wikipedia. -
dwc lr (
talk)
12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, this seem rather couterproductive and out of touch with the real world - I would even suspect that you by a statement like that wish in advance to exclude certain topics from Wikipedia, regardless of the interest in this topic and the notability of particular articles - or is it merely anti-royalist sentiments, that sets your standards for judging articles like this??
Oleryhlolsson (
talk)
06:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia - if they don't "still occupies a throne" they are not royal families. Let those that "have a keen interest" in such fantasies satisfy them somewhere else than this encyclopedia.
Smeat75 (
talk)
02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG - not as the younger, unlikely ruler of a country, but because he has been in the news several times. There's nothing that excludes someone from having a biography on Wikipedia because of being in the "scandal rags"; many actors, models, and royalty end up being covered in popular newspapers and magazines. We just can't use those as the only sources, but in this case, there's plenty of reliable sources available. If it is the consensus, I would not object to a merger to the article of an appropriate relative. The consensus seems to be that younger/more remote royalty are not automatically notable, unless they also satisfy GNG by coverage in the news because of Charity work, scandal, or business. Bearian ( talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (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.
- 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 argument that the subject is notable as a member of a dynasty is weak, but that does not also weaken the argument that he meets GNG, and the sources provided in that respect have not been convincingly refuted. There was insufficient discussion with respect to whether merging this with his wife's bio is a viable option, but that's something that can be discussed at the article's talk page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1985)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1985) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject has lots of coverage. His marriage was covered by Vogue, Harpers' Bazaar, and Town & Country. When he and his wife were expecting a child, Vogue covered it. The birth of his twins made People, In Style, Hello Magazine, and Cosmo. He has an entry in the Bright Young Royals book and in Debrett's Peerage (second result down in Google snippet). There's a lot of coverage out there, and that's not including deprecated sources like Daily Mail. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- More on case for deletion The Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist when it was annexed by Prussia back in 1866. This person is not even a pretender to this throne, or likely to become one or head of the deposed family, since he has an older brother and a nephew. Even some claims about his place in the line of succession to the Hanoverian and British thrones looks dubious (see article and its talk page). Some of these sources look like trivial entries in reference works or gossip. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per points made by Kbabej. Subject has been the subject of press from credible sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip rag, and coverage that just exists in that level of articles is not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, @ Johnpacklambert: Per WP:RSPSOURCES, multiple sources in the ones I listed above are considered generally reliable (People, Vogue x2). While those publications can lean in the gossipy direction, these articles are on points of fact (marriage, births, etc), not speculation on who's dated who, etc. -- Kbabej ( talk) 19:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Senior member of a major royal dynasty. The fact that the throne itself no longer exists is neither here nor there. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Major royal dynasty? The
Kingdom of Hanover was an odd political entity which existed covering a limited area of northern Germany for a relatively short period, from 1814 to 1866. Up until 1837 it was in personal union with Great Britain. This Hanoverian royal family is a junior branch of the British royal family which only ruled Hanover as an independent entity for 29 years, and only produced two actual monarchs.
PatGallacher (
talk)
14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- As a kingdom it was indeed a major royal dynasty. Also a very well-known one, especially when ruled by the British Crown. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Major royal dynasty? The
Kingdom of Hanover was an odd political entity which existed covering a limited area of northern Germany for a relatively short period, from 1814 to 1866. Up until 1837 it was in personal union with Great Britain. This Hanoverian royal family is a junior branch of the British royal family which only ruled Hanover as an independent entity for 29 years, and only produced two actual monarchs.
PatGallacher (
talk)
14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Being (possibly) second in line to a position that has not existed for more than 150 years does not confer notability. Smeat75 ( talk) 12:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have attempted to excise the monarchy fancruft and other nonsense from the article. Whether "he got married and Vogue ran pictures of it" is enough for an article I leave to others. -- JBL ( talk) 21:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Per the reasons listed above by
Kbabej,
Willthacheerleader18, and
Necrothesp. --
West Virginian
(talk)
21:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't bother you that Necrothesp's "arguments" range from unconvincing to unambiguously false? If I wanted this article kept, that would bother me. --
JBL (
talk)
21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, good, another personal attack on my integrity. Presumably linked to the
one on my talkpage. This editor clearly has a bit of a vendetta and has decided to do a bit of stalking. Not sure why, given I'm not aware of having any knowledge of him whatsoever. Obviously someone else who is so convinced they're right and they're doing what's best for Wikipedia (unlike us other editors with differing opinions) that they won't brook any disagreement. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Evidently, in addition to repeatedly offering incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination, you also don't know what a personal attack is. --
JBL (
talk)
11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think that claiming an experienced editor's argument is "unambiguously false" is a clear attack on their integrity. As is alleging
incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination
. As is going to another editor's talkpage for no good reason and advising a completely univolved editor who was leaving a message on another topic thatI know nothing about this particular article or its broader subject, but having observed Necrothesp's comments at a number of recent AfDs and RMs, I would advise you to take statements like the one above with a grain of salt.
What would you call actions like this? As it says at the top of WP:NPA:Comment on content, not on the contributor.
However, I think I'm just going to shrug off your comments as an inability to accept a difference of opinion rather than take them any further. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)- "Your argument is false" is a comment on content, not on any contributor, likewise the other. By contrast, saying that I have "a bit of a vendetta" is a comment on me, not on any content. The statement that the subject of this article is a
[s]enior member of a major royal dynasty
is unambiguously false. Words have meanings. -- JBL ( talk) 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Your argument is false" is a comment on content, not on any contributor, likewise the other. By contrast, saying that I have "a bit of a vendetta" is a comment on me, not on any content. The statement that the subject of this article is a
- On the contrary, I think that claiming an experienced editor's argument is "unambiguously false" is a clear attack on their integrity. As is alleging
- Evidently, in addition to repeatedly offering incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination, you also don't know what a personal attack is. --
JBL (
talk)
11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, good, another personal attack on my integrity. Presumably linked to the
one on my talkpage. This editor clearly has a bit of a vendetta and has decided to do a bit of stalking. Not sure why, given I'm not aware of having any knowledge of him whatsoever. Obviously someone else who is so convinced they're right and they're doing what's best for Wikipedia (unlike us other editors with differing opinions) that they won't brook any disagreement. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that editor gets to proclaim "the fact that the throne itself no longer exists is neither here nor there." I think it is very much an issue. Having an encyclopedia article about someone just because they are (possibly) second in line to a throne abolished more than 150 years ago is utterly ridiculous imo. All this "deposed ruling family " fancruft needs to removed.
Smeat75 (
talk)
23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think I get to "proclaim" whatever I like when expressing an opinion on an AfD. Are you maybe actually suggesting I'm not entitled to an opinion that conflicts with yours? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't bother you that Necrothesp's "arguments" range from unconvincing to unambiguously false? If I wanted this article kept, that would bother me. --
JBL (
talk)
21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Kbabej. A lot of deletes and comments seem to be based on ignorance, for starters this family ceased to reign in 1918 (
Duchy of Brunswick) - -
dwc lr (
talk)
06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- So you're saying this guy was a prince of −67 years instead of −125? -- JBL ( talk) 12:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Had a look at this, the full story of this family's reign in the Duchy of Brunswick is complicated, but they only effectively ruled for a short time, 1913 to 1918. This article describes this guy as a Prince of Hanover, it is that on which his claim to notability is based. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with his wife's page. He's not notable on his own aside from having royal ancestry, and all current coverage as far as I can tell has been on his marriage or his children's birth, with the primary focus always on his lawyer-model-businesswoman wife Alessandra (2 of the 4 cited articles on the couple mention only her in the title). We regularly delete articles of women who are "noble" but whose only notability outside genealogy books is in relation to their husbands; this isn't any different.
JoelleJay (
talk)
16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- His wife is probably going to be deleted as well.
PatGallacher (
talk)
16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why. She is notable in her own right, and her article is well-sourced. --
Willthacheerleader18 (
talk)
17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was getting confused between his wife and his mother, but I still have some doubts about her notability. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why. She is notable in her own right, and her article is well-sourced. --
Willthacheerleader18 (
talk)
17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- His wife is probably going to be deleted as well.
PatGallacher (
talk)
16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The question is not whether the throne of Hannover is defunct or whether we like articles that has some genealogical issues about it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be able to provide articles about every major topic that is of interest to humanity or at least some part of the human society in the world, and for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson ( talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia - if they don't "still occupies a throne" they are not royal families. Let those that "have a keen interest" in such fantasies satisfy them somewhere else than this encyclopedia.
Smeat75 (
talk)
02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, this seem rather couterproductive and out of touch with the real world - I would even suspect that you by a statement like that wish in advance to exclude certain topics from Wikipedia, regardless of the interest in this topic and the notability of particular articles - or is it merely anti-royalist sentiments, that sets your standards for judging articles like this??
Oleryhlolsson (
talk)
06:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
out of touch with the real world
No, though that does seem like a good description of calling someone born in 1985 a "Prince of Hannover". -- JBL ( talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)-
step into the real world, then safely come back to the bosom of Wikipedia. -
dwc lr (
talk)
12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Um, sure, whatever you say. -- JBL ( talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
-
step into the real world, then safely come back to the bosom of Wikipedia. -
dwc lr (
talk)
12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, this seem rather couterproductive and out of touch with the real world - I would even suspect that you by a statement like that wish in advance to exclude certain topics from Wikipedia, regardless of the interest in this topic and the notability of particular articles - or is it merely anti-royalist sentiments, that sets your standards for judging articles like this??
Oleryhlolsson (
talk)
06:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia - if they don't "still occupies a throne" they are not royal families. Let those that "have a keen interest" in such fantasies satisfy them somewhere else than this encyclopedia.
Smeat75 (
talk)
02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG - not as the younger, unlikely ruler of a country, but because he has been in the news several times. There's nothing that excludes someone from having a biography on Wikipedia because of being in the "scandal rags"; many actors, models, and royalty end up being covered in popular newspapers and magazines. We just can't use those as the only sources, but in this case, there's plenty of reliable sources available. If it is the consensus, I would not object to a merger to the article of an appropriate relative. The consensus seems to be that younger/more remote royalty are not automatically notable, unless they also satisfy GNG by coverage in the news because of Charity work, scandal, or business. Bearian ( talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (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.