Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William van Cutsem

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 merge to Hugh van Cutsem. Please note that the hen harriers incident should almost certainly not be merged per WP:BLPCRIME. Editors are reminded that the strictures of WP:BLP are not optional. Arguments related to inherent notability were discounted due to the history the community rejecting such a practice in these cases. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William van Cutsem[edit]

William van Cutsem (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)

Non-notable individual, only claim to fame is acquantance with one of the Windsor boys. TheLongTone (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - He is the God Father of the Future King of England and he is an intimate of both PrincesMasterknighted (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ie he has inherited notability. Has he got any notabilty in his own right? The answer is no.TheLongTone (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was with Prince Harry when the hen harriers were shot at Sandringham which Jeremy Deller made reference to in his piece for the British pavilion at the. 55th Venice biennaleMasterknighted (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was named godfather to the heir presumptive of great Britain by the heir presumptive before him you know very well that he is notableMasterknighted (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraireTheLongTone (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge: with Hugh van Cutsem. Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Prince George of Cambridge. WP:NR is a failed proposal which suggests that certain members of the Peerage inherit nobility (by Wikipedia standards) however I think "godfather to the heir apparent" is a bit of a leap from Peerage. I'm not an expert in this, of course, but since NR never achieved consensus we have to fall back on WP:BIO. This person is mentioned in passing in a few news pieces about the Royal Couple (a subject covered in excruciating detail) but even so is not personally covered in any significant detail. It may be worthwhile to mention him on the young Prince's page (along with his six other godparents) but a separate article is not warranted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual is not a member of the peerage, as he is not titled and does not sit in the House of Lords. (Real actual peers usually meet WP:POLITICIAN because they are members of a national legislature, or in the case of hereditary peers may become members if other peers elect them.) He's a private individual who has gained very minor notability only by association. He's done nothing and holds no position which would make him intrinsically notable. Not only does WP:GNG apply here, so does WP:BLP - a private individual with no claim to notability has the right of privacy, including privacy from a a Wikipedia article. Also, do not merge: nothing here is worth keeping. --NellieBly (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inherit tone of this directive is that somehow this quorum that forms what notability is somehow above the media and that it allows a cabal to create a criterion, whereby obscure objects carry merit whereas subjects deemed non notable do not. As if notability is or was not oft inherited where when they play a central role in a popular story which is sure to become legend and the only way to insure ones oversight is to have to the subject be stillborn only to reappear later. Whatever happened to foresight- give me a break , editors here make up their own terms like laureate of the nobel prize which is nobel prize laureate ...Really often it is only insisting on the importance of the editorial function when we do not celebrate ourselves properly because we are all pretending to be celebrating somebody else , everybody is notable and we are not the determinators of this Masterknighted (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to claim to fully understand this jumble of words that you've posted (twice for some reason) but I assure you nothing here is "made up". The Wikipedia community has a General Notability Guideline which you can read if you wish - it says basically that subjects which meet the guideline can have their own Wikipedia articles, otherwise the subject does not meet the criteria and does not have an article. This is not arbitrary, as you allege, but based on the agreement of hundreds of thousands of editors in a great many discussions over the last decade or so that Wikipedia has been operating. A more specific version of this guideline that applies to biographies also covers the topic of this article in greater detail, and by my reckoning, the person who is the subject of this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, thus I have argued that the article should not be included. As for "sure to become legend", we have a policy against trying to predict the future. I have no idea what you mean with your stillborn comment, but no, everybody is not notable (by Wikipedia standards) and the Wikipedia community is the determinator of this, as far as this website is concerned. Ivanvector (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an infallible religion there are all kinds of made up stuff here that gets indoctrinated and is repeated without people finding out if it is true wikipedia only determines if people are notable as far as wikipedia is concernedMasterknighted (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true at all. Information on Wikipedia is required to be documented by a reliable source, otherwise it can't be verified and it gets deleted. This is especially true for biographies of living persons. As for notability, you are correct that Wikipedia editors only determine notability for the encyclopedia's purposes, based on established consensus. It is not a commentary on a person's actual real-life notability; that is not an evaluation we are allowed to make as Wikipedia editors. Anyway, this is getting away from the discussion at hand; if you'd like to continue this discussion about general notability I invite you to comment on my talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you answered that very well, there are semantic mistakes legislated in by quorums of editors determining a template and reading it off from style guides such as laureate of the nobel prize which is clearly nobel prize laureate, there are plenty of inaccuracies voted in and then blindly read out notably in the listing of deaths, I have vented and am happy with the response, thank youMasterknighted (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - This article should stand on its own. He is by virtue notable and deletionist would better serve humanity by adding to an article rather than push for deletion. More information is valuable and if left to survive the article would most certainly grow with information and may lead to a future valuable resource.Jimgerbig (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable by virtue of what exactly?TheLongTone (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SeeUser talk:Jimgerbig#William van Cutsem, the above editor appears to have been canvassed by User:MasterknightedTheLongTone (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked the editor to look at it is that illegal the information is public how else would you have found out about it?Masterknighted (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By virtue of the fact that he is the God Father to the future King of England. As for the comment about being canvassed. It is very much my prerogative to view any days articles for deletion, and I am able to do it all by myself, as I am the curious type. Thank you very much! Jimgerbig (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lrt's be exact. He is one of a number of godparents. Not an office, merely indicates that is a pal of Edward's. Do you understand the idea of inherited notabilty?.TheLongTone (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Edward? And it is not an idea it is an attributionMasterknighted (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC) He is also born of Dutch nobility via his mother Emilie (née Quarles van Ufford).Masterknighted (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop avoiding the issue. I realise from the above postings that English is not your native language, but you really ought to make a serious effort to understand WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to insult me dear chap.. I will happily point out that your user page is used to insult both Damian Hirst and Jeff Koons, which in of itself is highly improper, Tom Wolfe wrote an essay called "Why Picasso will be the Bouguereau of the year 2020" so calling Damia16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)~~n Hirst Jeff Koons the Bouguereau of our times you have got to wait on line buddy....[1]. Furthermore they have labeled Julian Schnabel that as well [2]. Meanwhile, it is obvious that TheLongTone by calling the subject in question Edward (as in William's elder brother Edward van Cutsem) is not even sure which person's Wikipedia article he is endeavoring to delete here.Masterknighted (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, commenting on your English was not intended as an insult. I was merely positing that you may have missed a nuance or two. Secondly, thinking Koons vacuous is a fairly widely shared opinion. And it was Hirst whom I compared to Bougereau. (a widely respected painter in his day) I have not read the Wolfe article, btw. Thirdly, you are avoiding the issue: Cutsem is only the subject of coverage because of his association with the Windsor family, as your truly barrel-scraping recent addition to the article demonstrates. Fourtly, I really can't be bothered to remember the names of the members of the Windsor family. Life is too short.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't offer any notability, it says he is well connected. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely he is not a member of the Windsor family so this proves you don't even know who we are talking aboutMasterknighted (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Masterknighted I have met Jeff Koons on numerous occasions and I will be happy to relay to him that you feel that he or his work is vacuousMasterknighted (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. When Kate Middleton comes to your wedding, when you get write-ups in the Telegraph, you're notable in British eyes, although my American sensibility suggests that Cutsem has not really done anything substantive other than have well-connected friends, so I guess I am a weak keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pageboy at the wedding of Charles and Diana one of the most notable weddings of all timeMasterknighted (talk)2:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • CommentIs there a single item of media coveage of Cutsem that is not a story about the Windsors? No. Even coverage of his father's funeral is mainly about the members of the royal family in attendance.TheLongTone (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hugh van Cutsem, where he is mentioned. Reading the biography, I do not see anything I consider notable in what he has himself done, other than be a friend of the members of the Royal Family. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In answer to the question posed by the TheLongTone (who put his comment in out of sequence from where it should chronologically appear) Are there any news articles about the subject which do not refer to the Windsors? (of whom he thought van Cutsem was one ) There is from the business side [3] And to spend so much time trying to delete something couldn't your energies be put to better use somewhere else?Masterknighted (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial mention of the acquiring company which van Cutsem happens to be involved with, but that isn't a point in favour of notability for him or for the company. The company they acquired doesn't seem to be all that notable either, for what it's worth. Establishing notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Significant means much more than having one's name briefly mentioned in an article about something else; it requires publications of great detail about the subject directly, and most often for our purposes multiple such sources are required (but not always). The Telegraph article mentioned by Tomwsulcer is very light on detail but it is a start towards significance, however it's the only one - if there were several such articles about other things that he's done (especially things that don't involve the Royal Family) then I might start to be convinced of notability. Alas, such is not the case. Ivanvector (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a question was posed if there was a single news source for the subject which did not involve the Royal family and there isMasterknighted (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2014 (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/William_van_Cutsem&oldid=1083983138"