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.
This is the 3rd nomination of this person, but the first discussion led to a decision to delete, the second was to keep. Consensus is now moving in favour of deleting these sorts of articles about minor members of former royal families with no serious claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage on him, besides trivial lifestyle news. The article is mosty a list of his relatives, apparently because there isn't anything substantial to write. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and should not have article on people who only get covered in tabloids or lifestyle sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in and focus of articles from multiple reliable sources that are not fashion or tabloid StellarHalo (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gave delete on the deletion requests for many royalty spam articles, but this one is different. First of all, being a member of a deposed royal family with enough multiple reliable sources and some sources in Greece grants WP:GNG. Second of all, he is also the future head of the deposed Greek royal family and is referenced in reliable sources. VocalIndia (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is just about enough information to establish WP:GNG. Prince Constantine Alexios is the eldest son and heir to Prince Pavlos which makes him an important member of the House of Glücksburg. The Hellenic Throne may be defunct but the House is still very much in existence. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the two above. The subject in question has been cited in both primary and secondary reliable sources. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , being "heir" to a nonexistent position does not make someone notable. The rest of the article is just a list of his relatives.Smeat75 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two positions in question here. The prince is still present in the Danish line of succession, which exists currently. Sunshine1191 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is not in the line of succession to the Danish throne, as his grandmother renounced her rights when she married into the Greek Royal Family, which itself lost their Danish succession rights when, upon the implementation of female succession to the Danish throne, the line of succession was limited to descendants of King Christian X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: It is true that the Danish line of succession is limited to descendants of Christian X, but as a descendant of King Christian IX he is still a minor Danish prince, entitled to the style of Highness.[1] Also, stressing once more on the fact that it is the Greek Throne that has been deposed, the two hundred year old House of Glücksburg still exists. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Prince Constantine Alexios is an important member of not only one but two royal houses. I've updated the Personal life section with additional sources. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfy WP:GNG, he have received many coverage and there is about enough information to establish WP:GNG. e.g [1]. SoeThiha5 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced, enough information to establish WP:GNG. --Richiepip (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage passes GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the growing consensus that the next heir to a defunct throne is still notable, even if all his relatives might not be; he easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#8: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth). Being related to former and present royals does not make someone notable, contrary to the assertions of some editors here; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, see WP:INVALIDBIO: 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); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The assertion that there is WP:SIGCOV is strange to me; four different sources have been presented to support this assertion yet none of them actually provide any in-depth coverage, only trivial gossipy material. TompaDompa (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well. The longer we wait for the closure of this debate the more relevant sources and articles are in the meantime found about this individual, and some of it are added to the article. I find your assertion, that there isn't WP:SIGCOV a bit odd. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have any particular source in mind? When editors above asserted that sources that demonstrate notability exist, they linked to this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage, this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage, this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage, and this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage. It's all trivial, gossipy material. "Look at these photos on his Instagram" is not significant coverage, it's trivial tabloid journalism. I also looked at the sources cited on the article itself, and even ignoring that several of them are the same article hosted on different websites, none of the ones I could access provided any in-depth, significant coverage. Namedrops and trivial coverage don't establish notability, only significant coverage does. I put it to you that if there is significant coverage, it should be fairly easy to give an example of something he is notable for (besides having famous relatives, which is the reason all this trivial coverage exist and which doesn't count when we determine notability for Wikipedia subjects). If it is not possible to say based on the sources what he is notable for (again, besides who he is related to), then those sources hardly provide significant coverage, now do they? TompaDompa (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is information about his life not "in-depth coverage"? The first link alone provides a lot of info on who he is. Also, these are not gossipy materials. They are directly based on the contents he has shared through his social media rather than some baseless made up nonsenses like "Prince William had an affair with the Marchioness of Cholmondeley". Where is the Wikipedia policy that states that this type of coverage is trivial and not significant? StellarHalo (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the information about his life is his genealogy, his date of birth, and the school he went to, that's not in-depth coverage. That the things the sources report are based on things posted social media rather than baseless speculation doesn't make stuff like Judging by his mother's Instagram page, it looks like he received a pretty special 18th birthday present. not be gossipy. TompaDompa (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you start pointing at specific guidelines it is always a good idea to remember to read the text from it's first sentence, and not just from the part of the text, that you would like other users to focus on. The first sentence here starts like this: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Well, as for Constantine Alexios we can first of all say that he does pass GNG on the points that the sources provided are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject, and he's the focus of several of the sources, which means there's "significant coverage" as defined by GNG. We seem to disagree on the notion "significant". From your concept of "significant" it sounds like it has to be several pages long text about the subject and with little or no importance of pictures or other illustrations. Well I see significant coverage as a source where not just one aspect but in stead various aspects about the subject in question or about how we should percieve the role and place the subject has in this world is listed, mentioned or brought to our attention. This understanding can come from text as well as pictures and other illustrations as well, depending on the nature of the subject and the nature of the kind of notability the subject is known for. To go back to the first sentence again. First "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", well yes certainly. Constantine Alexios has received attention in far more languages, than I can count, and in far larger numbers, that I can count (by the thousands or more) and secondly "and over a period of time", also affirmative in connection to Constantine Alexios. The first significant coverage was of his baptism in 1999. His first years in school is only mentioned briefly in the sources we so far have come across, but from around his final year at Wellington College (2016-2017) and until this year he has been covered often and not just as a small notice about being a son of his parents, but with actual information about the person in question. And then, what is Constantine Alexios notable for? Well apart from the fact of being a member of two royal houses of Europe he is at least notable for (as far as we can tell from the media coverage on this person) three things 1) Being a "celebrity", that is of course a rather general term, but in contrast to some old German princesses that no one really know about, and even fever care about, then Constantine Alexios is a young celebrity both measured by the media coverage, he receives and by the number of people around the globe, that follows in some way or another his life and his creations (followers by the hundred thousands it seems). 2) He is also noted for his artistic skills and creations in paintings, illustrations, sculpture and photography and that's one of the reasons, that he draw the attention from so many followers, it's not just because he is an unwed bachelor prince. 3) He has been a model for the notable House of Dior who for this specific job deliberately choose notable/famous people from around the world. And as for the "significant coverage, that can tel us some details about who Constantine Alexios is, and what kind of things he do in his life, it could be articles like these (though I still miss out on several major languages wheter there should be significant coverage in those languages or not): Constantino Alexios, el talentoso príncipe de Grecia que saca suspiros en Instagram, CONSTANTINO ALEXIOS CUMPLE 18 AÑOS, FELICIDADES, Греческий принц Константин-Алексиос: почему юноше прочат популярность принца Гарри, Kronprinsesse Marie-Chantal sender sin ældste søn i skole i USA, Η απίστευτη ζωή του εγγονού του τέως βασιλιά Κωνσταντίνου – Σπουδές, εξωτικά ταξίδια και κυνήγι, The incredible life of Prince William's Instagram-famous godson, Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece, Meet Prince William’s Instagram-famous godson, Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece & Dorte Quist (23 June 2016): "Familien flytter til New York", Billed Bladet (Denmark - in Danish). Oh yes, it has been mentioned, that some of the sources is basically the same text, and to some extent that is true for some of the sources, but only to a certain extent. If you scrutinize these sources more thoroughly you will find, that there are small differences between these at first glance apparently identical sources, with some sources containing information, that the other sources don't, so in most cases, there have been an editorial overseeing of these sources before being published. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we evidently have different ideas about what "significant" means in this context. You seem to be focusing on breadth of coverage whereas I'm focusing on depth of coverage. If all we can say about a subject is basic biographical information (because that's all the sources report), we're not an encyclopedia but a glorified WP:DIRECTORY. If all we can say about a subject is trivial and/or gossipy stuff (because that's all sources report), we're not an encyclopedia but a glorified tabloid. I don't think those two types of coverage add up to signifiant coverage. I would characterize the coverage he has received as trivial, sensationalist celebrity gossip, not significant coverage. The idea that news articles about his baptism constitute significant coverage is a bit silly to me – that's not exactly in-depth, because there is of course nothing in-depth to say about a child that young. The stuff about being a model for Dior is plainly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'll quote WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. I don't think there is substantial depth of coverage in any of these sources, the independence of the sources that do exist is not exactly flawless (although there are slight variations), and the coverage is indeed trivial, so I don't think the combined coverage from these sources adds up to substantial depth of coverage. TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of what is 'significant' or not, can not be judged by any objective standard - that is all in all a subjective point of view. Well it seems that a broad majority of the users engaged in this AfD debate has another view on WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG than the view you try to advocate for, and as for notability, frankly TompaDompa if I have to choose, I will tend to choose Dior's judgement on who is a celebrity and a notable person in this world way beyond the choise you wish to make in this matter. The matter of him being a model for Dior is of course also mentioned in several other sources (it seem that some of the best sources for this individual is neither in English, Greek or Danish but actually in Spanish - partly probably due to his close family ties to the Spanish royal family), and it is surely also a natural part of the book itself, but I don't see any point in adding the book to the list of sources when it is allready mentioned in the text itself. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The size of the article has now been increased with more than 50% since the opening of the AfD. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
^Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser XIX. "Danemark". C.A. Starke Verlag, 2011, p. 10. (German). ISBN978-3-7980-0849-6.
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.