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. This is an entirely unsourced article about a living person. By being nominated for AfD it has become contentious. WP:BLPREMOVE instructs us to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The article is therefore deleted without regard to the arguments about the notability of obscure (para-)nobility. But the discussion indicates that if any sourced information about this person is re-added to Wikipedia, it should be as an addition to his father's article, rather than as a standalone article.  Sandstein  06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Odysseas-Kimon 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)

The subject of this article is a six-year old who "is currently enrolled at knights bridge school in London". (Straight from the first lead paragraph.) It appears that this boy has never done anything notable, and he does not even come close to passing WP:BIO. His name appears in a few press reports having to do with his birth and the births of his siblings, and presumably he appears in the Gotha. That's not the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. The article was created by an IP when the boy was 14 months old, presumably on the (invalid) principle that notability is inherited. Hans Adler 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article:

• September 2004: birth of subject.
• November 2004: an IP creates the article
• December 2006: PROD (article still unsourced at this point)
• December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article
• August 2007: article is restored, still unsourced
• January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article
• July 2008: same editor as in 2007 restores the article, still unsourced
• April 2011: article still unsourced after 6 1/2 years, with no notability in sight.

Unaware of the history I prodded the article, but Calathan noticed my mistake. I have proposed deletion because (1) a redirect doesn't really make sense for a non-notable person, and (2) it's not clear whether to redirect to father or mother. However, redirect is a conceivable outcome. In this case I would ask for protection of the redirect. Hans Adler 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - but Wikipedia has been a bit lax in the past about Royalty, and based solely on precedent, this would be a keep. Prince Odysseas-Kimon is fourth in line to the Greek throne (if it ever comes back), and somewhere about 268 in line to the British throne (about as likely as King Ralph). A redirect to his father makes sense. I find zero sources online just about this kid. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure you are aware that the precedent-based argument is actually the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and only reflects the recent numerical strength of the fans of nobility cruft. There is no such thing as a Greek throne, as Greece has been a republic since 1974 and there is no reason to believe this is ever going to change again. (The Greek monarchy was a creation of European powers in 1862/63.) Being in the line of succession for this abolished throne doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:BIO as a politician. And 268th in line for the British throne is nothing. The prod in 2006 pointed to WP:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Kreuger, an article that was also deleted. That child was 88th in line for the British throne. And as a practical matter, there is simply no material for an article about this child. As usual for this kind of article, it consists entirely of nobilitycruft templates. In a sense this is also a case of WP:BLP1E, the only event that has ever been reported being the child's birth. Hans Adler 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the Angelica Kreuger precedent. I stand corrected. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my "precedent" argument was and is based on WP:OUTCOMES, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Somehow the absurdity of WP:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois and similar AfDs has disillusioned me w.r.t. previous outcomes of nobility-related deletion discussions. (A not-quite-three-year-old boy who died in 1676 and whose existence is only known from a mention in a letter by his mother. No other sources. AfD ended in keep.) But of course OUTCOMES is still sane as a general principle. Hans Adler 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece and do the same for the other children. - dwc lr (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article as is. This article and those on the remaining siblings are of historical and political interest and are relevant. We maintain articles on children of other monarchies, such as Viscount Severn (England), and even though the Greek monarchy is defunct at the moment, these are still persons of interest. Unless there is a removal request from the children's family, these articles are harmless. As to source-less, give the article time to develop (after all, this is a child) and gain sourced information. As there has been debate on this page, there is clearly interest in maintaining the page. Why not err on the side of inclusion? After all, that was the original idea behind Wikipedia.

Unregistered (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.20.79 (talk)

Wrong project. This is Wikipedia, not WikiGotha. This child fails all our notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not aim to give complete genealogical lists of modern representatives of formerly ruling families. And even if it did, it would be utterly pointless to do this by giving each member of such a family a separate page full of ornamental templates that have nothing to do with the person. Not even the Almanach de Gotha, or the various web pages maintained by modern royalty, uh, enthusiasts spend a full page on every little pseudo-royal rugrat or abecedarian. Why should we? Not even an average mayor of a medium-sized city gets an article here. Hans Adler 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article", "January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article." There's the real problem, whatever those peoples' motivations. Not the person who restored it, who did absolutely the right thing, even if by accident or for bad reasons. If redirecting without discussion is not sanctionable, it should be. Redirected articles are only a little easier to find than deleted ones, and there is a reason we have AFDs, no? Anarchangel (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish you were right, but you are not. Try starting an AfD and saying up front that you want the outcome to be redirect rather than deletion. Anyone but a masochist will do that at most once. From the POV of AfD bureaucrat it's a criminal abuse of AfD because, according to them, "redirect" is technically the same outcome as "keep". Some admins even follow this ideology when closing AfDs and close near-unanimous redirect cases with "keep". Hans Adler 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarise, merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. The nom is quite right that this kid is not notable enough for his own article. If he was the eldest son, fine, but he's the third, so until he does something particularly noteworthy, he's only slightly more notable than a regular six-year-old. Nightw 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into father's article and do the same with all his siblings aside from the eldest son. Morhange (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability is in exceptional cases inherited, and one of them is reasonably enough the immediate family of monarchs. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware that this child was born 30 years after Greece became a republic? I wouldn't consider a grandchild immediate family. The fact that Greece is no longer a monarchy can of course easily be missed in this walled garden of nobilitycruft. Hans Adler 04:29, 19 April 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.