Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon[edit]

Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon (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)

A man whose only particularity is being the heir to the long-defunct Bonapartist imperial throne of France. I can't find reliable sources establishing his notability per WP:BIO. Le Petit Gotha is apparently a book of monarchist genealogy; like other genealogical records it doesn't establish notability. The two newspaper articles cited are no longer online; if as their titles suggest they cover some family quarrel about the "succession", then that would be material for the article Bonapartism, where this man is already mentioned.  Sandstein  15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We do have Monarchism in France and pages for every over Pretender already. We should not delete this page any more than deleting the entire ecosystem of pages. But having a central page modelled after the French one could be good. Jean Christophe Napolean has a slightly more extensive page with slightly more extensive references at: Jean Christophe Napoleon Totustuusmaria (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being heir to a throne and head of an Imperial House usually makes the holder of those posts notable. Also notable enough to receive coverage in reliable sources, some examples: [1][2][3] - dwc lr (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no throne or Imperial House in France for the last 200 years or so; the titles etc. are a private conceit. The coverage in Point de Vue is not accessible and the magazine appears to be of questionable reliability; the third link is a passing mention of the man appearing at a party.  Sandstein  20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Imperial House whether its reigning or not, titles etc are still attributed to non reigning royals as you can see in the WSJ link where his attendance was deemed worthy of being noted for the readers as the prince is a notable person due to his position. Also the fact a magazine has run articles on this individual also indicates notability, I'm not sure what basis you have to question the reliability of the magazine? - dwc lr (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the fall of the Napoleon III was 4 Sept, 1870. Far less than 200 years ago. Totustuusmaria (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not familiar enough yet with policy on inherent notability or otherwise of pretenders to extinct titles to decide keep or delete. However it's clear that this person has no other claim to notability - he's just a banker. And using the title 'Prince' - and as part of the article name - and incorporating the noble family infoboxes (for him and the rest of the family) seems to give undue weight to a frivolous claim and makes Wikipedia look pretty silly. So if kept, let's call him by his actual name and just note that he is a banker who happens to be descended from Napoleon. Mcewan (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty generally are only notable because they inherit a notable position and status. The reason he is notable is because he is head of the Imperial House of France, in that capacity you will find he is always referred to as a Prince in sources. - dwc lr (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with any policy or guideline that assumes the notability of pretenders to thrones that have ceased to exist.  Sandstein  01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Prince of what, exactly? And what "sources"? The more I look at this the more I think we need to be more rigorous about restricting the coverage of fantasy claims to noble titles like this. Let's record the fact that the claim exists, and maybe list the pretenders, but not have articles for every related individual who is not otherwise notable. Mcewan (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article already has citations which haven't been credibly impeached as reliable sources, and it's clear from his father's article that much of the cites there are applicable. Bonapartism exists, his father's article documents that the two are rivals to represent its historical, genealogical and symbolic evolution to the present. This article should be improved, not deleted. FactStraight (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that I can't see how it could be improved unless there is something additional to say. Any ideas? Mcewan (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the criteria at WP:BIO, he falls well short. There are no special cases for pretenders to defunct titles. Aside from the mention of his appearance at a party in WSJ, and reports of a family tiff, there is absolutely no coverage, certainly not in multiple reliable independent sources. Mcewan (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with dwc lr, this person is a rightful heir to a noble family and is also a celebrity of our modern ages. I also add other sources to which he is featured in, such as:
  • Interview with Prince Napoleon He is clearly someone of importance in our community and someone who needs to be respected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springyboy (talk • contribs) 10:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately those are not really policy-based arguments. A blog with a translation of an article in a monarchist mag is not a reliable source, and a single magazine interview would not establush notability even if it were. Mcewan (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policy or no policy, to readers of the English Wikipedia readers he is of just as much interest as a senior French government minister like the Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls (holder of “one of the most important governmental cabinet positions”) based on page views over the last three months. But of course we editors know better than the readers what they want and should be allowed to read about on Wikipedia. In my opinion royalty need their own notability guidelines like sports persons and politicians etc have, this is beacuse heads of royal houses in particular are notable and of interest to people. - dwc lr (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that he is not of interest, just that he is not sufficiently notable for his own page. As a test, do we think he would meet WP:BIO notability if it were not for his descent from Napoleon? The debate really hinges on whether there is inherent notability (in the Wikipedia sense) for such people, and it would be good to have a proper policy debate about it, but as things stand it seems clear that there is no such inherent notability. Mcewan (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here specifically looking for him, since I am researching the current claimants to the French throne. Monarchism is a big deal in France, and these houses are well established. There are three of them: The House of Bourbon, the House of Orleans, and the House of Bonaparte. Are you also suggesting we eliminate all the pages associated with the claimants of the House of Bourbon or the House of Orleans? Sometimes someone is notable for reasons other than personal fame. These pretenders may or may not be notable personally, but they are notable politically because of the households they head, and the historical and contemporary importance of monarchism in France. There are quite a number of wikipedia articles that relate to the matter. Why target this one in particular? Totustuusmaria (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is not about Monarchism in France, or the House of Bourbon, or the House of Orleans, or the House of Bonaparte which all have their own articles. And I agree that we should be able to use the encyclopedia to find out that this man is the current claimant. However a separate page is unnecessary: there is nothing interesting in this article apart from his pedigree, a mention of a squabble and that he is a banker. All of that could quite simply be included in the list of claimants. If he ever does anything notable in his own right, then we should have an article. Otherwise where does this stop - do we create an article for his first-born son, and record his first words? And the existence of the other articles is not a valid argument. Mcewan (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After my initial comment, I did try to find policy or consensus on this, but could not, hence the delete vote. Could you provide a pointer to something demonstrating that consensus? Mcewan (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although to slightly reverse that "other stuff" argument, from a quick sample of the articles, in some there is clear notability for other reasons (so the individuals stand on their own merits); a few others are more like the article at hand (so a similar case could be made for their deletion).
And in the List of current pretenders, the several names that are not blue links argue for a lack of unspoken consensus - although given the geographic spread that may be due to systemic bias. Mcewan (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Other articles about pretenders exist" is not a convincing keep argument. Maybe it just indicates other AFDs are needed. Notability is not inherited, so his having a royal ancestor 143 years ago does not give him inherent notability. Unless he is notable for other reasons, such as his banking career, delete as failing WP:BIO, unless that guideline has some clause stating "all pretenders to defunct empires and kingdoms are notable." That keeps Wikipedia from being a directory of every nonentity who says he is the heir to some long ago king. If reliable and independent secondary sources have substantial coverage of their career of "pretending," then point them out. Blogs or websites operatied by royalty hobbyists are not adequate, nor are mere directory listings in genealogy books. Edison (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that otherstuffexists, I am merely stating an observation: several AfDs have created a consensus that most leading pretenders are notable. I will try to look for examples. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable pretender to a throne. RNealK (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - Interesting, I am finding AfD results all over the place - many mergers, many deletions, some keeps, and many with no consensus. Examples of "keeps" include Ethiopia (perhaps outdated 2005), but a keep to a Habsburg in 2012. Lack of consensus after AfDs in 2009, here in 2007 too, and even as recently as this month. So I stand corrected - there seems to be no consensus. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes this persons claim to fame is being a pretender to the throne however this is nothing new to the encyclopedia and definitely makes for interesting reading. I don't see how deleting this article will actually improve the pedia and thing that even if it didn't meet the notability standards which it does this is a situation where WP:IAR would be well applied. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, head of a former European royal house. --Norden1990 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst he may not be notable as an investment banker, the fact remains that he is historically relevant, if not notable, in the same way that Franz, Duke of Bavaria is. Unless we have a separate article listing all the present pretenders to non-existent European and other thrones, this and other such articles should be kept for their historical bearing, whatever the republican POV may be. However, I think calling him 'prince' in the heading and in the lead is going over the top. In 1975, Walter Curley, the then US ambassador to France, published a book entitled Monarchs in Waiting about such pretenders around the world. He even listed the then Mughal pretender.--Zananiri (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean-Christophe,_Prince_Napoléon&oldid=1082615976"