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. — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In three years of discussion at Talk:Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark#deletion, no convincing explanation was found why this young man should be notable. As he is rather photogenic, he is occasionally mentioned with a photo in the press, but there aren't really any details. He is the son of a former king, but it is important to note that he was born long after Greece became a republic. He was therefore never a prince in the usual sense. Apparently he carries a Danish title which bizarrely calls him a prince of Greece and Denmark, but per recent precedents (some of his nieces and nephews) that alone also does not establish notability. Here is a typical example of how he is mentioned in the press ("But if you like a quiet life [and consider marrying him], this can only be a good thing, and it appears the Prince is more than happy to stay out of the limelight.") Hans Adler 13:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possible slight merge to his father, Constantine II of Greece, due to a lack of significant media coverage. If the subject becomes notable in the future as a socialite whose life becomes the subject of significant media attention (or for other reasons), the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable - see Forbes, for example. Warden (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually one of the sources I discounted as failing WP:GNG. I am delighted to see that you have now also found a trivial mention in the New York Times ("Prince Dimitri counts members of at least a half-dozen royal families living in the tri-state area, most to little fanfare. Among them are Prince Philippos of Greece, who recently arrived in Manhattan to work at the EIM hedge fund [...]") and added another scrap of information to the article based on it. Hans Adler 06:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes and the New York Times are good sources for our purposes. The information they provide is succinct but significant. They provide key facts about the subject's education and employment and so we have adequate material for a brief biography. Articles are not required to have a minimum length - enough is as good as a feast. You don't seem to have provided any policy-based reason to delete - just some ad hominem WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Warden (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are good sources, but the information is trivial and insignificant. Consequently, the article is not so much an article as a profile that would be more appropriate for something like Linked-In. And of course it attracts the usual nobility templatecruft. We don't require policy-based reasons for deletion. There is no notability policy, so it's enough when an article is not notable per the notability guidelines. This article fails all the applicable criteria (WP:GNG, WP:BIO). Hans Adler 13:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Adequate material?" That he exists, that he's 22 and that he's going to school? Sorry. WP:GNG specifically holds that the subject must be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources, and specifically holds that a sentence or two does not cut it ... so yes, there is a tacit minimum length, Warden, and you have been involved in far too many AfDs to be ignorant of the applicable notability guidelines. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is discussed in significant detail in multiple reliable sources and so does satisfy the GNG. WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These various sources are more than trivial mentions and so the article is fine. Warden (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A source devoting two sentences to the subject is exactly what a trivial mention is, and WP:GNG says so explicitly in the guideline's footnotes. (One wonders exactly how short a mention would have to be for you to consider it a "trivial mention" failing that?) Would you like to try again? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No significant coverage. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Neutrality^talk 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is extremely, extremely brief. Given the penchant of the media to gossip endlessly on all the celebrities and royalties, two sentences are wholly trivial coverage for a topic like this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:06, 28 June 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.