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 keep‎. Editors predominantly expressed a consensus to keep, some with additional reservations. More importantly, the “keep” voters made strong notability-based arguments, while the “delete” comments focused on the non-heritability of notability without directly addressing GNG and other points, in addition to expressions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (non-admin closure) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2024 (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 | edits since nomination)

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

He's not a prince, and the royal house he is supposed to become head of is wishful thinking or nostalgia (take your pick). Perhaps he is a nice young man, but even being a pretender's son stretches WP:NOTINHERITED too far. The sources are all pretty much fluff. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Keep Delete. Looking through it, there is at least one profile in a moderately reputable publication (Business Insider), in addition to the fluff found in the celebrity magazines also cited. His status as a prince of the House of Glücksburg, which includes active monarchies, arguably would hit the bare minimum of WP:GNG. Article definitely needs a lot of work, it's terribly unencyclopedic as it stands, but AFD isn't necessarily appropriate for poorly written but otherwise likely-notable subjects. Shifting to delete the based on precedent stated below by @TompaDompa nf utvol (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, @Nfutvol:, but did you read the BI piece? "So, Prince Harry is officially off the market — but don't despair. There are still plenty of eligible young princes out there to steal your hearts." It's complete clickbait fluff, starting with the title: "The incredible life of Prince William's Instagram-famous godson, Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece". It's illustrated with clips from his Instagram feed (which appears to have disappeared or something). And we're back at the point where he actually isn't royalty, he's just a hyperprivileged kid with some royal distant cousins. BI is willing to play along with the fiction to get clicks, but but when all is said and done, this is lifestyles of the rich and, well, not actually famous. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did read it. And yes, it is a puff piece. But it is a puff piece in a major publication (in addition to the SCMP and Harpers puff pieces) not terribly different from what you'd find in the lifestyle section of any major newspaper. Again, it's a soft keep...I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. My thought mainly rides on the fact he's a titled member of the House of Glücksburg, and, your personal thoughts on the matter notwithstanding, he is heir apparent to the relatively recently deposed Greek crown. I think that's a bare minimum to pass GNG, though in this case the article is so poorly written that it might be better to nuke it and start over. nf utvol (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He is not heir apparent to the defunct throne, nor is anybody else. That's what it means for it to be a defunct throne. Who succeeded Constantine II of Greece as King of Greece when he died a year ago? That's right, nobody did. Who is the current King of Greece? That's right, nobody is. TompaDompa (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic then all pretenders and claimants to defunct thrones should be sent through AFD unless they are particularly notable in some other way. Which is fine by me, but I think is a bigger/broader question on how this sort of case is dealt with. nf utvol (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well... yes. That's a pretty straightforward application of WP:NOTINHERITED. I might note that we deleted no fewer than 40 "Line of succession to the former throne of X" articles back in 2020 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40). TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was unaware of that string of deletions, works for me! Changing my vote to delete. nf utvol (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfutvol What precedent? All those articles mentioned were about lines of succession to a defunct throne and not biography articles. They got deleted for being original research. Many articles of "non-reigning" royals have been nominated for deletion over the years and most of them were kept. StellarHalo (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Be that as it may, the point is that being a member of a former royal house does not in itself confer notability. We have even deleted multiple articles for members of current royal houses when those individuals are not otherwise notable. So the question is really whether this person is notable apart from who they are related to. You can apply the "complete nobody" test: if somebody who is otherwise a complete nobody (say, your friend's cousin's hairdresser) had the same level of coverage in the sources as this person, would you consider that to constitute significant coverage indicative of notability? TompaDompa (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has enough online coverage. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the number of well arguments in previous deletion discussion for keeping this article. It's actually rather 'annoying' that this deletion-mania keeps popping up. Please reed the discussion thread from the third discussion about this. A nomination starting with "He's not a prince" is clearly way from beeing anything we should be proud of displaying as a basis for an encyclopedian discussion. He is a prince and has been so for his entire life, and setting aside whether being a 'prince' is of encyclopedic importance or not, it's realy redicolous beginning a discussion like this with a false statement. As for the question about notability I trust the judgement of Dior way more than the warious prejudiced comments we ususally find in discussions like this here on Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the grounds for his notability is being a model for Dior why is that not what is mentioned in the opening paragraph? Curious. The answer is that he is not notable for being a model for Dior and instead you are using this as a weak justification for a fluff article. I find it amusing you trust a French fashion brand's advertising to tell you whether or not Greece recognizes royal titles or has a monarchy system. That's truly a source worth building an encyclopedia upon.

  Being a "prince" for a defunct monarchy is not grounds for notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever Dior has to say, he is not a prince. The Greeks abolished nobility there, and as far as the Danes are concerned he is a very peripheral noble, if they even count him at all.

• Keep and Rename without the Prince title, and perhaps without the Denmark title, and perhaps without the Greece title. Was he a Prince before the monarchy was abolished appears to me to be a relevant criterion for this article name. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was never a prince, as he was born well after the monarchy was abolished. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And Screaming Lord Sutch was never a lord! So what? Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Sutch claimed a place in the House of Lords (which he did not) or that King Tom at UMCP seriously claimed to be royalty (ditto), the situation is hardly the same as someone whose coverage is based upon playing along with a falsehood. The problem isn't the name of the article; the problem is that everything revolves around him being treated as if he held a title, a position, which he does not in fact hold. How do we make an article which is truthful, under the circumstances? Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is the notability actually? Family? WP:NOTINHERIT; Modeling? WP:NMODEL

  When there is significant coverage different from "This person exists", why is there nothing significant or notable in the artice? --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Son of the head of the Greek royal family with enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. And of course he's a prince. He can call himself what he likes and he's generally referred to as a prince in any case, so it makes it his WP:COMMONNAME. Laughable that people support trans people being able to change their names, actors using stagenames and writers using pen names, but (for purely anti-monarchist political reasons) oppose members of established royal families using their titles. Bit of a double standard there, I feel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Comparing changing one's name with claiming a defunct title that one does't have is absurd. Athel cb (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, if someone changes their name to something random that's fine but if they use a perfectly respectable hereditary title that their family has always been entitled to use that's absurd? If John Smith the rock guitarist chose to start calling himself Prince John Smith that would be fine but if Constantine Alexios chooses to call himself Prince Constantine Alexios that's absurd? Bizarre. How is that not a double standard? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not he calls himself a prince (and whether or not he is allowed to), he isn't a prince of Greece as Greece does not have a monarchy (and during his lifetime, never has). As the adage goes, calling a tail a leg does not make it so. Prince (musician) and Queen (band) are likewise not royalty. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One is not royal because a state says one is royal. That would undermine the whole concept of royalty. Now, I appreciate that anti-monarchists would not be swayed by this argument, but pro-monarchists are not swayed by the WP:OFFICIALNAME claims either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "perfectly respectable hereditary title"; according to the Greek government, it is a fraud. I should also point out that the history of the modern Greek nation doesn't make fo a good argument here given that the monarchy was abolished twice and that Constantine I was chucked out twice. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that we are not bound by what governments say. And there is certainly no fraud here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. The OP did not do a WP:Before check before nominating this and has not provided a policy-based rationale for deletion, only an irrelevant argument that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the same goes for all the delete votes here. Any individual who has received significant coverage in multiple RS is notable for an article. Any argument regarding what the article subject has done or whether or not he is a prince is not relevant. He has been covered by The Times, Business Insider, South China Morning Post, La Vanguardia, El Mundo, Vanity Fair, Point de Vue, Paris Match, Harper's Bazaar, Tatler, El País, El Confidencial, Hello!, Cosas Peru, Revista Clase, Elle, Vogue, Caras, and L'Officiel --StellarHalo (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to assess the proposed sources. Recall that being a prince of a deposed monarchy is not inherently notable per our practice, see WP:MONARCH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - leaving aside all the stuff about "he's a prince so he must be notable" (ILIKEROYALTY) vs. "not a prince and if he were he still wouldn't be notable" (IDONTLIKEROYALTY), there is so much press coverage that he probably makes it through as a straightforward celebrity (famous-for-being-famous) under #1 of WP:BASIC (multiple independent sources). Ingratis (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alright, I took a look at the first WP:THREE sources proposed by StellarHalo above. The first was paywalled, so I looked at the fourth to make up for that. None of them contain what I would characterize as WP:Significant coverage—rather, it's trivial tabloid celebrity gossip and what amounts to "Look at these photos on his Instagram". If this is a representative sample, he does not seem to have significant coverage. TompaDompa (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that individually these are not the best sources, and that Instagram features heavily. Having said that, (1) some of them have quite a lot of sensible text in between the pics - for example, this and this (they may be foreign language versions of English-language articles); and (2) my understanding of #1 of WP:BASIC is that if there are enough independent sources then individually they need not be as significant - and there is no shortage of sources. If he were a common or garden celeb - for example, a Love Island or Eurovision contestant - they would be more than enough. It really doesn't make any sense that belonging to a Royal family (or if you insist, formerly Royal) actually makes anyone less notable, but that seems to be what is happening. Ingratis (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. However, the coverage still has to add up to significant coverage. Repeating the same non-significant coverage doesn't make it significant coverage, for instance. I took a look at the sources you linked, and I'm not seeing significant coverage—I'm seeing basic biographical and genealogical information, as well as the aforementioned trivial celebrity gossip. The connection to monarchy here doesn't really matter; there are children of celebrities with similar or slightly greater depth of coverage (Jasmine Jordan—daughter of Michael Jordan—was one of them a few years ago; I don't know if she has received more significant coverage since), and I don't think that's WP:Significant coverage indicative of WP:Notability and hence suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, either. I think we should apply the same standard here as we would to a complete nobody—hence my comment above about one's friend's cousin's hairdresser. I wouldn't consider the level of coverage I have seen here significant coverage indicative of notability in such a case, and thus I don't here either. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I follow your argument. I think what I keep coming back to is that if he were a nobody - friend's cousin's hairdresser, indeed - he wouldn't get the coverage at all. The fact that he gets so much (even if low grade) = notability. However, I could accept a WP:TOOSOON take on it, and like Bearian below, wouldn't be too unhappy with a redirect (to his father, presumably). Ingratis (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's always a tricky situation, when relating to former monarchies. Perhaps a mega-AFD (or something) should be held for all bios of members of former royal families, who were never a monarch. At the moment, I don't see Greece becoming a monarchy again (anytime soon), or choosing Constantine's father (Paul) as King, thus making Constantine crown prince. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like it has the potential to be a Wikipedia:Trainwreck. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As discussed above, this one is tricky. Its improbable (although not impossible, see Spanish transition to democracy) that he will become King of Greece. For me, I go back to my long-standing standards for nobility: "There are two ways nobility or royalty can become notable in the 21st century: (a) being involved in major scandals and/or (b) being the patrons of notable philanthropies. ... So the proverbial Duchess in Hanover who divorced her husband after he was found in the arms of another woman, and her 20-year patronage of the Museum of Modern Art would be notable, but a Princess who had only passing coverage would not be. Again, if the only sources are about attending weddings, christenings, and funerals, a redirect to her husband's article might be best." I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece - A huge run of sources were posted, but many of those actually suggest he is notable for being the son of his father (i.e. inherited, but on Wikipedia we don't do that) and the remainder suggest he is instagram notable, but he is instagram notable for the same reason. There is a policy reason against this article: deposed monarchy are not inherently notable, and yet this one is notable only for being the son of the crown prince of a monarch. Is the instagram notability enough for a page? Well maybe - but not this page, as it is. I think it comes down to WP:PAGEDECIDE. In this case he has an instagram following owing to his parents and grandparents. Better to cover it on on the page of the Crown Prince. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (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.