Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mowatt
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 Temporary keep per OTRS Ticket # 2007072910013442 MessedRocker (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Mowatt
Apparently a photographer, but there's no assertion of notability. (Well, he was married and had kids, but this is of course true for billions of people and anyway WP isn't a genealogical database.) Googling brings up Wikipedia, Wikipedia scrapes, genealogical stuff, and merely the most minor of references. Prodded on 19 July; prod removed (with an indignant edit summary) three days later. -- Hoary 14:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination -- article does not demonstrate notability. TheMindsEye 14:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have added references and an external link to this article. Yes, he is not very significant except he was married to a member of the royal family which does make him quite important; if you're into that sort of thing. Best to keep him as I think he will only be added again anyway. It's actually quite interesting to see what he really photographs from the links. Do not delete. SuzanneKn 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment but the evidence presented so far is the most humdrum commercial photography. Where are the books or solo exhibitions? -- Hoary 15:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment Interesting. Paul Mowatt is the former husband of a member of the British Royal family and father of the 38th and 39th in line to the British throne, which is not quite true for billions of people. The genealogy of the Royal family is of legitimate encyclopedic interest too. However, he does not appear to be notable in his own right. --Malcolmxl5 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As I understand it, being 38th and 39th in line means squat unless/until the first 37 are wiped out. Since the first 37 are likely to be rather widely spaced apart (grouse-hunting for the oldsters, Ibiza for the kids, etc etc), it would take quite a calamity -- Hollywood-style monster asteroid? -- for them all to be blown away. Such a calamity, indeed, that I think even the staunchest of monarchists would have more pressing things on their mind than the question of whose profile would appear on the next set of coins. -- Hoary 15:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Marina Ogilvy (which contains most information here but lacks the citations). --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge He's notable because he married a royal, and he'll be mentioned for that fact alone in history books and news stories for the rest of his life, and at his death, and for long after that. Whether you agree with royality or not, he has his 100% stamp of notability assured for life and death. The question is, should it be redirected to the royal he married per Dhartung or not? I'm not sure it matters. He was fairly well known as a fashion photographer, but without checking back issues of W, I couldn't know his status today. In addition to which, if it is deleted it will merely be added back again and again, as he is mentioned every time he or his daughter, a good friend of Princess Beatrice's, attends a party, so people will look, see him missing, then add him in, without a proper article, and this discussion will go on and on without resolution. So, let's not nominate for deletion, now, but decide whether a redirect is appropriate. KP Botany 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm puzzled. Both your comment above and the article as it now stands (as last revised by you, I think) say that Mowatt's major claim to fame is that of having married a royal. But that particular royal seems pretty minor: I'd never heard of her, and her own WP article says little more than that she was born, got married, had babies, and is now #37. ¶ Mentioned for that fact alone in history books What kind of history book would this be? The history books with which I'm familiar don't mention people in line to the throne (or their husbands or dads) unless perhaps they were thought to have a sporting chance of actually becoming the monarch. ¶ . . . and news stories . . The British paper with the best web search archive that I know of is the Guardian; its total number of hits for Paul Mowatt is zero (0). ¶ if it is deleted it will merely be added back again and again, as he is mentioned every time he or his daughter, a good friend of Princess Beatrice's, attends a party: I didn't look up his daughter (and offhand don't know who Beatrice might be), but since the Guardian doesn't mention Mowatt at all we can quickly infer that it doesn't mention his party-going. (Am I looking in the wrong newspaper?) Also, I hadn't been aware that the probability that an article would be re-created was reason not to delete it. It would be a doddle to redirect the article to that of his ex and then to sprotect the redirect. I suggested deletion instead because (i) Mowatt is being presented on WP as a photographer (see this edit, by 86.144.202.178, who is bt.com as is the Mowatt-concerned 86.144.207.4); (ii) it seems odd, and perhaps insulting for both parties, for an article on one living person to be a redirect to that on their ex; and (iii) I didn't notice anything obviously article-worthy about his ex. -- Hoary 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That is his major claim to fame as far as I can tell, but for some reason, you didn't mention or find that when you googled him, so I'm going to doubt your Guardian searches also, and the "history books with which you're familiar with." KP Botany 16:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't ask you to believe me. Instead, feel free to pop on over to the Guardian and type his name in the little search window at the top right; you'll then see for yourself. As for the history books, I can't be bothered to list those that I know, but you're welcome to supply the titles of history books that do describe who was number-thirty-plus in line to the Youkay throne at this or that time during the 20th century. -- Hoary 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely, and what a new one for AfD, a pure delight. If my history books prove something that yours don't or vice versa, that's good enough for Wikipedia. Oops, wait, I seem to have missed that one. Seriously, what your collection of history books contains is not relevant. It seems you are intent on deleting, which I don't care much about either way, except for the fact that it will simply be recreated the next time he is mentioned in a history book you don't read, and then this discussion will arise again. I really can't argue against your claims of what your history books say versus claims of what mine say, because it's entirely irrelevant and hinges upon our personal familiarity or not with various history books. However, again, as you don't know who Princess Beatrice is, I'm pretty sure you're not reading history books that have Brittish royalty in them, so again, besides the obvious, it's just not going to happen. I can't find anything about Beatrice in my biology book, either. Although I can find some stuff about her great-great grandmother. KP Botany 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't ask you to believe anything about my (admittedly poor) assortment of history books. I merely ask about the kind of history book that does mention the fact that this or that person is thirty-somethingth in line for the throne, when that person isn't obviously notable in any other way. The British history book that I have closest to hand happens to be K O Morgan, The People's Peace: British History 1945–1989; the QE2 and her mum both appear in the index, as does QE2's sister the photographer's ex; ergo, it does have British royalty in it. "Succession" and "throne" don't appear in the index; I can't think of any other keywords under which I might look. It's probably unfair to look up this kind of royaltycruft in a book that has only about ten pages per year; well, I'm all ears for a better and more comprehensive history. -- Hoary 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely, and what a new one for AfD, a pure delight. If my history books prove something that yours don't or vice versa, that's good enough for Wikipedia. Oops, wait, I seem to have missed that one. Seriously, what your collection of history books contains is not relevant. It seems you are intent on deleting, which I don't care much about either way, except for the fact that it will simply be recreated the next time he is mentioned in a history book you don't read, and then this discussion will arise again. I really can't argue against your claims of what your history books say versus claims of what mine say, because it's entirely irrelevant and hinges upon our personal familiarity or not with various history books. However, again, as you don't know who Princess Beatrice is, I'm pretty sure you're not reading history books that have Brittish royalty in them, so again, besides the obvious, it's just not going to happen. I can't find anything about Beatrice in my biology book, either. Although I can find some stuff about her great-great grandmother. KP Botany 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't ask you to believe me. Instead, feel free to pop on over to the Guardian and type his name in the little search window at the top right; you'll then see for yourself. As for the history books, I can't be bothered to list those that I know, but you're welcome to supply the titles of history books that do describe who was number-thirty-plus in line to the Youkay throne at this or that time during the 20th century. -- Hoary 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That is his major claim to fame as far as I can tell, but for some reason, you didn't mention or find that when you googled him, so I'm going to doubt your Guardian searches also, and the "history books with which you're familiar with." KP Botany 16:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm puzzled. Both your comment above and the article as it now stands (as last revised by you, I think) say that Mowatt's major claim to fame is that of having married a royal. But that particular royal seems pretty minor: I'd never heard of her, and her own WP article says little more than that she was born, got married, had babies, and is now #37. ¶ Mentioned for that fact alone in history books What kind of history book would this be? The history books with which I'm familiar don't mention people in line to the throne (or their husbands or dads) unless perhaps they were thought to have a sporting chance of actually becoming the monarch. ¶ . . . and news stories . . The British paper with the best web search archive that I know of is the Guardian; its total number of hits for Paul Mowatt is zero (0). ¶ if it is deleted it will merely be added back again and again, as he is mentioned every time he or his daughter, a good friend of Princess Beatrice's, attends a party: I didn't look up his daughter (and offhand don't know who Beatrice might be), but since the Guardian doesn't mention Mowatt at all we can quickly infer that it doesn't mention his party-going. (Am I looking in the wrong newspaper?) Also, I hadn't been aware that the probability that an article would be re-created was reason not to delete it. It would be a doddle to redirect the article to that of his ex and then to sprotect the redirect. I suggested deletion instead because (i) Mowatt is being presented on WP as a photographer (see this edit, by 86.144.202.178, who is bt.com as is the Mowatt-concerned 86.144.207.4); (ii) it seems odd, and perhaps insulting for both parties, for an article on one living person to be a redirect to that on their ex; and (iii) I didn't notice anything obviously article-worthy about his ex. -- Hoary 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To wax pedantic: Mowatt is only the former son-in-law of a member of the royal family, Princess Alexandra of Kent, a first cousin of the Queen. She and/or her husband declined an earldom on marriage thus her children bear no title even in the peerage and really are not members of the royal family in the strict sense (i.e. people addressed by H.R.H.). This is essentially an entry of no importance outside of monarchist genealogical circles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As I've stated above, he has been listed within WP as a photographer, which is how I came across his article. Somebody describing herself as related to a gallery "in DC" also claimed in my talk page that he was a noteworthy photographer, but didn't respond to my invitation to provide evidence. (This person in/of/from DC uses bt.com and has an interesting contributions list.) -- Hoary 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: In truth, His sole claim to notability was marrying a mixed up kid who had a rather famous first cousin once removed. He also had a mother-in-law who saw straight through him. Being disapproved of by one's mother-in-law does, and having a failed marriage in no way confers notability. Contrary to claims above his wife was not a "Royal" she was in fact just a "miss". Giano 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Kindly do not tell me what to say or not to say. I merely demonstrate why the subject is not at all notable. I can assure you nothing is my "imaginations". Giano 12:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um, but Giano, there's nothing in the article about anyone seeing straight through or disapproving of anyone else, and anyway it's pretty routine for mums-in-law to see straight through their kids-in-law. (I daresay I'm transparent to my own mum-in-law. No big deal.) ¶ Frankly I don't care who he married, or what caused a divorce: If he's notable as a photographer I'm all for his inclusion, and I await evidence from Caroline of DC (and of bt.com) for his photographic notability. -- Hoary 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- All the article tells me about is his marriage - so I comment on it. Nothing else does it tell me, besides he is photographer - I take pictures of my kids and my wife in her new dress does that make me fashion and portrait photographer? No - it does not. The page is nothingness - delete it. Giano 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Um, but Giano, there's nothing in the article about anyone seeing straight through or disapproving of anyone else, and anyway it's pretty routine for mums-in-law to see straight through their kids-in-law. (I daresay I'm transparent to my own mum-in-law. No big deal.) ¶ Frankly I don't care who he married, or what caused a divorce: If he's notable as a photographer I'm all for his inclusion, and I await evidence from Caroline of DC (and of bt.com) for his photographic notability. -- Hoary 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Giano, but you raise a serious problem: I can no longer count the indentation colons. That aside, we do have evidence that he takes photos professionally; and while you may as well for all I know, most of us don't. But of course being a pro photographer in itself doesn't suffice. Well, let's see if this will prompt any revelations. As for his marriage, again, I know nothing of this and don't want to discuss it; but it can hardly have been worse than Armstrong-Jones's first marriage, which doesn't detract from A-J's (not stunning, but significant) achievements as a photographer. Really, I'd like to forget all about PM's wife and kids and be told what he has achieved. -- Hoary 13:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly do not tell me what to say or not to say. I merely demonstrate why the subject is not at all notable. I can assure you nothing is my "imaginations". Giano 12:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Footnote'. At Wikipedia, non-notable spouses of individuals with entries are often quite fully enough treated, with birth-death dates, in a footnote.--Wetman 07:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Hoary, Giano, Wetman, etc. There's no need for separate entries about one-time spouses of would-be royals. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a genealogical reference book. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
