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. NW (Talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Cook (line of succession)[edit]

David Cook (line of succession) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article has no sources, and the sole claims to notability are that the subject is descended from Queen Victoria and is in line to the British throne. According to Line of succession to the British throne, there are 502 people in the same position, of whom Cook is the 316th, so this doesn't seem sufficient grounds for inherent notability.

Previously prodded as non-notable and (three years later) restored on the basis that the deletion reason was "gibberish". Deletion log link Algebraist 03:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial sources which deal with this person's life. All information is trivially availible from public records and other trivial sources, lack of any indepth coverage which would satisfy WP:GNG. --Jayron32 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete It's still cool that if lightning struck the wrong assembly of royals at the wrong time, he could be like King Ralph. It is surprising if this has this never been covered in reliable and independent sources, perhaps when the movie came out. I find nothing in Google News Archive for "David Cook" "King Ralph" or David Cook" "British throne" Until such sources are found, delete because notability in not inherited and Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such coverage exists, it probably focuses on the first American in the line of succession, who is not David Cook (apart from anyone else, he has four older brothers also in line). Algebraist 20:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hasn't himself done anything to be considered notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 316th in line to the British throne... we stop counting any de facto right after about the top 50 (if that). No other claim to fame. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We have deleted articles before about people who were much higher in the British line of succession than the subject. There is nothing here but genealogical information and no indication that his royal ancestry has led mainstream media to take notice of him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (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.