Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nikolaos 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 Keep. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark[edit]

Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is no directory. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). Takabeg (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high-profile wedding alone meets WP:GNG without considering anything else whatsoever. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is sometimes inherited because eminence, fame, prominence (and even notoriety) are sometimes functions of the family to which one belongs, and children of kings and members of royal families are examples par excellence. Nikolaos happens to belong to two such families -- and in the case of Greece, he also belongs to a dynasty which has climbed on and off the throne four times -- each of which was, at the time, declared to be final. FactStraight (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficent third party coverage to establish notability. Wedding is a one-time event, and notablity of family is not inheritable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's in the media quite a bit and while he probably hasn't done anything notable, he is a celebrity and there are people interested in him. I've suggested merging his wife's article into his. Nightw 08:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this kind of deletion argument before, and it rests upon a misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED. It means we don't give articles to people just because they are related to or associated with notable people. But that's very different than saying that we don't give articles to notable people if the only reason reliable sources cover them was because of such a relationship. That would be us interjecting our own subjective judgment of importance for that of the reliable sources, and it would have unwanted consequences for most royalty/nobility subjects, First Ladies, heiresses, and many other relatives. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice or as precedent - most royals of all stripes are, in fact kept with their own articles, as noted by Postdlf, and all were kept until c. June 2010, when the prior Wikipedia precedent was that all royals were presumed notable. While the consensus seems to have changed, at least for not-sitting royals, I don't want this (or his brother's case) to be bad precedent. Sitting royals still enjoy the presumption of notability, like First Ladies, members of the British House of Lords, and other acknowledged and proven nobility. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 10 August 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.