Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ladies and gentlemen, today I have a real delicacy for you: An article about an almost but not quite three-year-old boy, created two weeks after his birth. (Fortunately His Royal Highness little Sir Aristidis-Stavros cannot read yet. Otherwise he might have googled his name and found out how many adults(?) appear to be obsessed over him. Quite spooky.) In the short period of this child's existence, his article has seen a veritable POV conflict, someone added and someone else removed a notability template, and someone even abused him verbally by calling him a "pretender". But to top it all, the article contains precisely two bits of information that go beyond his date and place of birth and his ancestry: One is sourced to a blog, and the other to a broken forum link.

The similar articles on his brothers Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark and Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark have recently been deleted. Is there any reason to believe that this child has inherited his grandfather's notability? Hans Adler 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little bit of respect might be appropriate for those Wikipedia editors who created and have edited this article - clearing believing that Aristidis is notable. It is possible to nominate an article for deletion without mocking other editors. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of the universal principle that whenever people do something ridiculous, it is the fault of those who laugh. I am not aware that I attacked anyone. Back to the topic: Genealogical websites have one line for him. His parents' website has one line for him. Wikipedia has the same amount of information on him but blows it up to the point that printing the "article" takes three pages. I don't understand how anyone can think that such Potemkin articles are acceptable. One shouldn't have to follow a link only to find that someone is so utterly non-notable that even Wikipedia hasn't found anything. Now if we had reliably sourced information that Aristidis-Stavros had the measles last November, or that unlike his siblings he doesn't like to eat mushrooms. Or that he goes to a kindergarten and all the other children there like him. That would be interesting information that would obviously justify an article. Hans Adler 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any reason to believe that this child has inherited his grandfather's notability? He's notable because of who his grandfather is, so technically, yes, he has inherited his grandfather's notability in the sense that his grandfather's notability makes him who he is. If he'd been born into some regular middle class family with no public notability whatsoever, I could see where your statement would make sense. But being the grandson of the former King of Greece (and son of the former Crown Prince) makes him somewhat notable, whether you like it or not. Whether he deserves a Wikipedia article is up for question, but your statement is simply wrong--or at least worded wrong. Morhange (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He would never get an entry in Britannica or anything like it. At his age he would never even get a separate page in any genealogical work. He completely and utterly fails WP:GNG, and the other notability guidelines are just approximations to GNG whose purpose it is to avoid repetitive discussions in borderline cases. Therefore a notability guideline saying that second generation descendants of kings are automatically notable would be invalid. But it so happens that there is no such specific notability guideline. Let's check the (potentially) applicable parts of WP:BIO:

WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources [...]." But: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." And this is explained further: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing". — Here we only have a one-line directory entry, blown up to an article for no good reason. This is similar to the case of a film, which is not notable just because it appears in IMDB. Note that this is the main test. The below "additional criteria" are just for fine-tuning this and in some cases allow redirects for non-notable people.
WP:ANYBIO: No well-known or significant award or honour, no widely recognised contribution to a field.
WP:POLITICIAN: Arguably he is a politician because some people fantasize he might inherit the currently nonexistent office of a Greek king at some point. But he has not (1) held any office, is not (2) a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, and in a sense point 3 applies: "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability [...]". His situation is analogous to that of a non-notable candidate for the presidency of a republic. Just being on the ballot is not enough.
WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
WP:BIO#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person"

To all this I could add that he is notable only for one event: his birth. So even if he were otherwise a borderline case, which he isn't, he would at most fall under WP:BLP1E.

If there actually is a wider guideline of type WP:The wider family of a monarch is notable, then I have missed it. In this case, please provide a precise pointer. Hans Adler 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to his father, Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, as I recommended in the AfD for one of his brothers, or just delete per the precedents of deleting the articles on two of his brothers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the personal attacks in the op are necessary. Hans Adlers, if you are serious about wanting to discuss the deletion of this article, as opposed to just being interested in a fight or something, you should confine yourself to notability argumentation. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any personal attack "in the op". If you think otherwise, you need to be more precise. Otherwise I will continue to believe that the claim by Noel S McFerran above, now repeated by you, is where the first ad hominem argument on this page was made. Criticising an article is not a personal attack, even if by some bizarre coincidence the article happens to have been created and/or written personally by an editor.

I am currently in the process of nominating five obviously non-notable "princes" for deletion, one after the other, because they have been unprodded or light-weight removal of the pseudobiographies has been otherwise prevented. Among the so-called nobility there appears to be a wide-spread misconception that they are automatically entitled to real or perceived honours such as academic titles (the former German defence minister is a notable recent example, and before him a grandson of the last Kaiser went about it even more blatantly by just copying an entire thesis) or Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately there is a number of editors who are pushing this meme vehemently. See WP:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois for a particularly blatant example. (A boy who died under the age of 3. He is not even mentioned in the official genealogies. We only know about him from his mother's letters, but even in her biographies he is just a short episode in her life.)

This article is no less irritating than an article about a minor Pokémon card or a random village mayor. Hans Adler 15:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "voted" in this deletion discussion (or the other Greek ones) because at the moment I have not developed a set opinion on the matter. I am concerned, however, with what might seem like a disrespect for other editors. In the merge discussion for Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois, only one other editor agreed with Mr Adler, while two editors disagreed with him. In spite of this, he merged the article. I'm not arguing in favour of an article on Alexandre Louis, but I would never merge an article with a 2 pro 2 con "vote" after a failed attempt at deletion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the AfD. It was 3 keep and 4 merge !votes if you count me as well. The outcome was: "A merge discussion on the article's talk page would be highly encouraged." The article clearly failed GNG. No policy-based argument for keeping it was offered. The only new participant in the second discussion (Lampman) !voted merge. Together that makes 3 keep, 5 merge and all policy-based arguments on the side of merge. That's a clear enough result. Hans Adler 00:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father or Delete as probably not necessary to have own article. - dwc lr (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or just do the same as was done with the articles on the other kids that you recently nominated. Nightw 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Edison (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2011 (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.