Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nikolai of Denmark

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – NSR (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nikolai of Denmark[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. As this boy is going to have a cousin who is the heir presumptive, thus Nikolai is not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). He is the heir of his father, thus deserves article a bit better than his own younger brother, but IMO does not yet deserve it. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the child in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to parent's page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone who is third in line to the Danish throne should be kept. There is no discussion that someone third in line to the British throne should be deleted. Minor royals should not be deleted just because a Republican is anti-royal.
Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father's page. And, it seems to me that there is very light and commonplace information in this article now. Arrigo 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think monarchy should be abolished, but not on Wikipedia. In other words: In my eyes this prince is not inherently notable, but my POV is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As third, soon to be fourth in line for the Danish throne, he is still an important figure. Likewise, if Lady Louise Windsor's article is kept, and she's eighth in line to the throne, then Nikolai, who is much closer, should also be kept. Morhange 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is third in line to the throne of Denmark. There was an article on the third in line to the British throne when he was a minor. Probably for other countries, too. Tree&Leaf 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable article about someone of wider interest than thousands of people we have articles about. Osomec 00:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, echoing sentiments above. Dottore So 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of royal families are inherently notable, particularly those close to the crown. 23skidoo 03:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of the royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gets lots of press in Denmark. Thue | talk 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Grandchild of a reigning monarch is sufficiently notable. Caerwine 22:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep john k 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grandchild of a monarch, third in line to the throne now, fourth soon, people much lower in the line of succession to the British Throne are kept, so should this be. prsgoddess187 06:16, 22 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.