Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Jean of Nassau

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 delete all. Sandstein 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Jean of Nassau

Prince Jean of Nassau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wholly non-notable in his own right and any notability is directly derived from his father, etc. Merge to his father's article, where the entire content of the article is located already. This is not a case of notability like Prince Henry of Wales, where he is wholly notable in his own right. Charles 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, all siblings, for the exact same reasons:

Prince Paul Louis of Nassau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Princess Charlotte of Nassau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prince Léopold of Nassau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. I understand that notability is not inherited through relation, HOWEVER, is there any guideline for notability of Royalty? These are all in the line of succession for a Monarchal throne, and it isn't like they are far off. These children are all 5th-10th or so in the line? Does that confer enough nobility? I know that some Notability guidelines confer notability on otherwise non-notable subjects (such as the Fortune 500 exception to WP:CORP); is there any such exception for Royalty like this? I am uncertain as to how to feel about this one, while I agree with the premise that there is not likely much independant press on these children (due mostly to their young age) yet, there is most LIKELY to be in the future (but does that qualify as crystalballery)? I am on the fence yet. I'd like to see what others say. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  The line of succession to the throne itself is notable and they are on that page, but individually there is nothing of note to warrant their own articles, especially since each article is essentially a carbon copy of the others. The information should be and can be presented on their father's page and on the succession page. Nothing more though. Charles 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep (all) As members of the royal family of a European country who are in the line of succession for their country's throne, I daresay that all of them have received considerable coverage by independent sources, even if it was just the coverage of their births. Furthermore, I imagine that they have demonstrable wide name recognition. faithless (^speak) 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  Please re-read what I said about their father and the information being there, and also how all of the information is carbon-copied from one article to another. There is very little that is unique about each article and they are not notable enough to warrant separate articles. Charles 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I maintain my "Keep" argument. I'm not defending the quality of the article(s), but I do strongly believe that these children, young though they are, are notable. Notability is not transferred; however, I don't think that's really the case here. If these kids were the children of a president, they obviously wouldn't be notable. However, being the children of the king of a country automatically bestows a nobility upon these children, thereby (in my mind) making them notable. And as I've said before, there is undoubtedly a fair amount of references available, and I'm sure that most Luxembourg-ians know who these people are, giving them demonstrable wide name recognition. I certainly understand where you're coming from, we just disagree on this one. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• These people are no different than the children of a president, they are still not notable and are not the children of the king of a country. A responsible action would be to merge the unique information to their father's article until they become notable (remember, Wikipedia does not predict the future (link to an official policy)). As for name recognition, most people in the world would have no idea who these people are and simply providing their date of birth and nothing more goes to show that there is nothing of note. References only refer to these children as the children of their father and such references tend to be in genealogical repositories, which Wikipedia is not (link to an official policy). Merge to their father's article. Charles 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  Children of a president? For the U.S., at least, we have Barbara Pierce Bush, Jenna Bush, Chelsea Clinton, Jeb Bush, Robin Bush, Neil Bush, Marvin Bush, Dorothy Bush Koch, Maureen Reagan, Michael Reagan, Patti Davis, Ron Reagan, Amy Carter, Michael Gerald Ford, John Gardner Ford, Steven Ford, Susan Ford, Tricia Nixon Cox, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Lynda Bird Johnson, Luci Baines Johnson, Caroline Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Jr., John Eisenhower, Margaret Truman, Anna Roosevelt Halsted, James Roosevelt, Elliott Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., John Aspinwall Roosevelt, John Coolidge, Calvin Coolidge, Jr., Elizabeth Ann Blaesing, Eleanor Wilson McAdoo (although not Wilson's other daughters), Robert A. Taft, Helen Taft Manning, Charles Phelps Taft II, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Kermit Roosevelt, Ethel Roosevelt Derby, Archibald Roosevelt, and Quentin Roosevelt, which is to say, all the presidential children save Hoover's sons and two of Wilson's daughters for all presidents since TR. So not a terribly good example. john k 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen. Charles 14:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I regularly contribute to the royalty articles. The information presented in this article is merely a duplicate of what appears in the article for the subject's father. There's no reason to place it here as well. When, and if, there is additional information about the subject, then I think that there should be a separate article. Noel S McFerran 10:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Noel S McFerran. Subdolous 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim of notability here. Being descended from someone famous does not make one a notable person. Let them do something notable before we create an article for them. NoSeptember 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all :: while current reigning roaylty may have some notability, as several of them will be figurehead heads of state, lesser royalty have only notbaility in that they parasitise on their people of their country, and prevent the eveoltuion of democratic governments. All articles on individual royals, self-titled aristocrats and other non-republicans should be removed, so that Wiki can properly represent the ideal of the United States of government of people, for people and by people. -- Jubelum 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Please read WP:NPOV. Some royalty will be notable regardless of what others think. This is a matter of what royalty is notable, not if all of it should be removed. Reigning royalty, by the way, has more of an effect than non-reigning royalty. Charles 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per my nomination and Noel's reasoning. Charles 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This material can be contained in the article on their father until the children do something of note. john k 14:25, 4 November 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.