Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Guillermo (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Guillermo[edit]

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

The son of Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Because notability is not inherited, he's apparently not in a line of succession and has done nothing important himself, he is not notable enough for an article (WP:BIO). The two newspaper items referenced in the article are two brief notices of his marriage to another non-notable person. This is not the sort of substantial coverage on which an article could be based, and the article is mostly unsourced, in violation of WP:BLP. More sources could conceivably exist, but the previous discussion didn't find them and I can't read Dutch.

This is a renomination after the previous, rather superficial discussion was closed as "no consensus" (see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 2). Sandstein 10:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and Redirect to Princess Christina of the Netherlands, his mother. Most of the sourced content on this page is also on his mother's page, where it belongs, and a brief mention of her three children is appropriate. Currently, his two siblings are redirects to their mother. Apart from being children of their notable mother, there is little more to say that can be reliably and independently sourced. The children do not meet WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SmokeyJoe. Not enough in the article (or that I can find) which meets WP:N (though there is quite a bit out there, it all appears to be from less-than-reliable sources and basically "royal" gossip). So the merge seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Does not meet WP:N, and I don't see any content worth preserving that isn't already covered there. Reyk _YO! 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or delete. Notability is not inherited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Same reason as before: there are multiple reports about him in Dutch main stream media. The article should not be deleted, unless there is a convincing argument that these reports don't establish notability. – Editør (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is. The "multiple reports" are two brief notices of his marriage. This is not the substantial coverage required per WP:GNG. We need sufficient material on which to base an article. Sandstein 14:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that the two sources mentioned in the article are the only existing sources, which is simply not true. Here are some additional sources [1] [2] [3] [4] from a quick search (all publications have an English Wikipedia page). Also his birth and baptism were widely reported and can be found via newspaper archives such as Delpher. These profiles and these reports of major events establish his notability. – Editør (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
when your sources include obvious passing mentions or short low content paragraphs then its obvious that the in depth sourcing is lacking, for me that makes this a clear delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this an in depth newspaper article. – Editør (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That he married an non-notable person is irrelevant. That information in the article is unsourced is only an argument for deletion of that particular information, not the article. That sources are in Dutch is not an argument for deletion either. – Editør (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've removed the unsourced material, rewritten part and added new sources. – Editør (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is now cleaned up and all information is supported by sources. – Editør (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Notability is not inherited, but royal titles are. He is a member of the Dutch Royal Family (but not the Royal House). Does that make him notable or are only members of the Royal House inherently notable? Mduvekot (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this man is not notable. It doesn't matter if he has a title. His mother is notable, and so he can be mentioned there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  His notability is not inherited from his mother. He is notable as a member of the (extended) royal family and there are various mainstream news reports and profiles written about him. He is not notable as a furniture designer alone, but I believe the current article reflects that. Maybe people are confused here because being royalty is inherited by definition, which is something different than inherited notability. – Editør (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2017 (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.