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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark[edit]

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

To quote from the only source for this BLP article: "This is my genealogy page with royal and noble family trees, including lists of rulers of many European countries. [...] Four photos of my son (part 22)". Anyone who doesn't see the problem, see WP:BLPSPS.

The self-published source could easily be replaced by a reliable source, as it doesn't say more than the one line in Debrett's does ("1c HRH Prince CONSTANTINE Alexios of Greece and Denmark, b 29 Oct 1998"). But that's rather pointless, as a single line like this is simply not the basis for notability, or for an article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to condense information to make it easily digestible, not to make huge pseudo-articles out of basically nothing. The impressive list of godparents (this crowd must have scared the little child like hell) wouldn't help with the notability problem either, even if there were a source for it.

More formally, let me repeat what I said (uncontradicted) about one of his brothers:

He would never get an entry in Britannica or anything like it. At his age he would never even get a separate page in any genealogical work. He completely and utterly fails WP:GNG, and the other notability guidelines are just approximations to GNG whose purpose it is to avoid repetitive discussions in borderline cases. Therefore a notability guideline saying that second generation descendants of kings are automatically notable would be invalid. But it so happens that there is no such specific notability guideline. Let's check the (potentially) applicable parts of WP:BIO:

• WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources [...]." But: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." And this is explained further: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing". — Here we only have a one-line directory entry, blown up to an article for no good reason. This is similar to the case of a film, which is not notable just because it appears in IMDB. Note that this is the main test. The below "additional criteria" are just for fine-tuning this and in some cases allow redirects for non-notable people.
• WP:ANYBIO: No well-known or significant award or honour, no widely recognised contribution to a field.
• WP:POLITICIAN: Arguably he is a politician because some people fantasize he might inherit the currently nonexistent office of a Greek king at some point. But he has not (1) held any office, is not (2) a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, and in a sense point 3 applies: "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability [...]". His situation is analogous to that of a non-notable candidate for the presidency of a republic. Just being on the ballot is not enough.
• WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
• WP:BIO#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person"

To all this I could add that he is notable only for one event: his birth. So even if he were otherwise a borderline case, which he isn't, he would at most fall under WP:BLP1E. Hans Adler 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I supported the deletion of his siblings but Prince Constantine is the future head of the Greek Royal House, his attendance at the wedding of the Duke of Cambridge was recorded on the official guestlist published while many people were missing, so has some notability in my opinion. - dwc lr (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep As dwc lr said. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable by standing in direct line of succession to the throne of Greece. Whilst I do not think he stands a cat in hell's chance of taking the throne, the family attracts continuing attention. Merging to a single article for the family might be an option, but keep for now. 'Not inherited' does not work for hereditary positions! --AJHingston (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The above keep votes with no respect of policy and of human decency, which forbids pseudo-biographies of children whose appearance in reliable sources is restricted to utterly trivial coverage in Debrett's are obviously related to this. I have notified the BLP noticeboard, see WP:BLP#Pseudo-biography of a non-notable twelve-year-old "prince". Hans Adler 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News articles on his christening was actually published in a number of newspapers (Belfast News Letter, The Scotsman, The Sun). I don’t think that’s something that is done for ‘non notable’ people personally. - dwc lr (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press is going to report on all sorts of things related to people like Constantine, but that doesn't make them notable. As an extreme example in illustration of my point, if the press reported that Constantine coughed without covering his mouth, would that constitute notability? At this point, his only notability is derivative.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think stories about his education, christening and so on are notable. He is the future head of the Greek Royal Family it’s easier to add content as it becomes available as opposed to starting from scratch a few years from now scrambling around looking for information. - dwc lr (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

″He is the future head of the Greek Royal Family″. No he isn't. Greece doesn't have a Royal family. Greece is a parliamentary republic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why I didn’t say he would be 'King of the Hellenes'. He will however be heir to the abolished throne, head of the (Former) Royal Family, Royal House, a notable position. - dwc lr (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically speaking, as a Brit, of Brit"ish" stock (i.e. the usual mongrel anglo-saxon/celtic/other north western European and no doubt elsewhere too ancestry) , and not a Catholic, I'd be surprised if I wasn't the somethingth (at a guess 30-millionth or thereabouts) in line to the throne of the UK, which has the (dubious) merit of still existing. That doesn't make me notable, as I have ***-all chance of becoming King. How exactly does being 'heir' to an imaginary throne make this poor sproggit more notable than me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are not in line of succession to the British throne, and Prince Constantine will head a deposed Royal dynasty, a position of notability. Pretty much every head of a deposed Royal House has an article List of current pretenders. - dwc lr (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a serious problem, as many of these BLP-related articles are unsourced or badly sourced, and some are unstable or have in the past been used by hoaxsters who created a fake royal ancestry for themselves. Hans Adler 09:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, per nominator. And regarding him "standing in direct line of succession to the throne of Greece", since the throne does not exist, he cannot stand in line for it. Creating halfbaked articles about minors supposedly in line to non-existent thrones based on nothing other than an imaginary 'hereditary position' clearly does come under 'not inherited', in the most obvious sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator that his only claim to notability is his family. Therefore, his birth can be noted in other articles and has already been noted, for example, in Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, his father. A standalone article for him at this point makes no sense. If he becomes notable in his own right later, than an article can be created for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I think Hans is being a bit melodramatic with his appeal to human decency, since Prince Constantine Alexios has no scandals, the article is unlikely to see much vandalism, we have no indication that this family would prefer not to be written about, etc. I would also argue to keep articles about similarly situated people who are parts of an extant monarchy. However, I am swayed by the argument that since Greece is no longer a monarchy (and seems unlikely at this juncture to return to monarchy) this family is now more in the situation of celebrities, former politicians, etc., such that notability is not inherited. (One of the rare cases where notability actually is inherited is in actual royal families. But this isn't actually a royal family anymore.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You could argue he is a member of the Danish Royal Family, a reigning family. - dwc lr (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yep appeals to common decency are very much melodramatic around here. John lilburne (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per dwc lr. And it can't just be argued that he is a member of the Danish Royal Family -- he is a member of that family, although not in line to its throne (but then, neither is any queen consort in line to the throne of the royal family to which she belongs). FactStraight (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent coverage in reliable sources, no grounds for extra coverage here (besides a mention somewhere in an article about his family or parents). Let's have an article about him if and when he is old enough to do something notable himself, or perhaps if and when he actually takes that magical position as "head" of his house. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AndyTheGrump. Rubywine (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such entries are pretty stupid. A 12yo child whose only claim to notability lies in the imaginations of others, ought not to be in the book. John lilburne (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A minor who is not covered in reliable sources due to lack of notability does not become an adequate subject for a Wikipedia entry simply because he's a prince. Per nominator and everyone else. Delete, delete, delete.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't meet the notability threshold at the present time, and may never actually meet it - I have my doubts as to whether him as a grown-up will make the cut, but at this age he'd have to outwit some bad guys or something. Dahn (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per AndyTheGrump ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have notability criteria and he does not meet them. Discussion about whether he might one day merit an article is irrelevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Constantine is the third most important person in the Greek monarchist movement. It's POV to maintain that we can have dozens of articles about democratically elected Greek politicians, but not articles about the most important individuals in the monarchist movement. This is part of an ongoing anti-"royalty cruft" movement on Wikipedia. I did not vote on the deletion requests for Constantine's younger brothers, but this one is different. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how significant is the "Greek monarchist movement"? Does it have popular support? Is it regularly discussed in the mainstream Greek media? Admittedly, a Google search in not the ideal way to find out, but its first find is to FaceBook: [1] 678 members... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And further to this is he really "the third most important person in the Greek monarchist movement"? I'm surprised that they let 12-year-olds join. He might very well be the third most important person to the monarchists, but lacking evidence that they are notable, he isn't either. Leave the poor kid alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did it occur to you that when editors who normally have better things to do start cleaning up royalty cruft, it might have something to do with the excess of unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles full of non-noteworthy trivia? Wikipedia is not a playground for royalty dreamers and nobility nosers. It's an encyclopedia. For royalty precisely the same rule as for Pokémon holds: If it's notable, it goes in. If it isn't, it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the reliable sources that don't do in-depth reports on the tiniest details of your personal hobby. It's just an accident that the closed season for royalty articles here at Wikipedia lasted a few years longer than that for Pokémon. Hans Adler 06:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as birth alone isn't notable enough, when one isn't royalty. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must of missed the news that Denmark became a republic. - dwc lr (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Prince Constantine in line for the throne of Denmark? Our article on the present Queen, Margrethe II of Denmark, doesn't seem to suggest so. Does it need correcting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Prince Michael of Kent is not in line to the British throne, but he is still a member of the Royal Family. - dwc lr (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(res to DWC), the Danish succession is limited to Christian X's descendants. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And has nothing to do with membership of the royal family, not only is he future head of the Royal Family of Greece he is also a Prince of Denmark and a member of the Danish Royal Family, just without succession rights. - dwc lr (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in the Danish line of succession, therefore he's not a royal. He's not gonna be the head of the Royal Family of Greece, as there hasn't been a Royal Family of Greece since 1973. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. So you are saying Prince Michael of Kent and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are not royal because neither of them is in line to the British throne either. Greek Royal Family is still called as such even if its non reigning. - dwc lr (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Royal Family exists, the Greek Royal Family does not. I'm not changing my stance on this AfD. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Prince of Denmark and member of the Danish Royal Family, does that exist? - dwc lr (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I'm not changing my stance. IMHO, only the 'pretenders' themselves, who were once monarchs, deserve an article. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is longstanding practice here - with lots of precedents - that royalty are in a sense always notable. Don't ask me to cite a specific policy, because there isn't one. But at past AfDs, we have always kept real royalty as well as pretenders who have some reasonable claim to get back their realms. Greece is perhaps the epitome of such a royal family. The subject is third in line. That's been good enough before. GoodDay's stance has not been the past consensus. If this is deleted, it will open a whole can of worms for further mischief. If the consensus has changed, we need more than a dozen participants to overturn hard-fought consensus. Only once before has HM Jimbo Wales inserted himself in a desire to change consensus, and that was a not pretty scene. I lost that fight, but at least I kept my good reputation. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "We have always had consensus to keep political articles on non-notable 12-year-olds" is not a good keep rationale, and neither is your unrealistic optimism to get one of the European monarchies back. Hans Adler 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't too great either. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Bearian. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 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.