Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher O'Neill


 * 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. Enigmamsg 06:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Christopher O'Neill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article defines Christopher O'Neill as a British financier and husband of Princess Madeleine of Sweden. Christopher O'Neill is not, however, notable as a British financier. The article about him exists since he married a Swedish princess, despite his clearly stated wishes to remain a private citizen. The article itself reports that. It has been emphasized by the Swedish royal court that O'Neill, unlike the spouses of his wife's siblings, is not a member of the royal family. Unlike them, he does no royal/state business whatsoever and holds no title. The official website of the Swedish monarchy does not have an entry for him.

A quick look at the content of the article is enough to establish that Christopher O'Neill is a person who is out of the spotlight and who is not independently notable. There is only sentence in the entire article which is neither basic personal info (place of birth, education, etc) nor family info (parents, stepcousins, wife, children). It says: "He was a Partner and Head of Research at Noster Capital and former employee of NM Rothschild and Sons and Steinberg Asset Management." The source is the Swedish royal court, however, meaning not independent coverage. O'Neill is not notable as a professional. The article exists because he is someone's husband, even though he does not do anything noteworthy as a husband. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - This is a royal person whichh has recieved attention world wide. His wedding to the Princess was broadcast live in not only Sweden. He has attended a lot of royal functions along with his wife. Article is sourced with mostly Royal courts sources but that is not a problem. That he is "only the husband" is a POV statement which bares little significance since all Royals have husbands/wifes which have separate articles. In fact Christopher is an accomplished businessman, the same can not be said about all in similar position.  Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have cited the Royal Court saying that Christopher O'Neill is not a "royal person". Your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is what has no significance. Besides, spouses of the King's other children are not private citizens but royals themselves. O'Neill is not notable for being an "accomplished businessman"; we had no article about him before his marriage, and (as Domdeparis has noted) we would not have one if it weren't for the marriage. His notability as an accomplished businessman is such that only one sentence in the five paragraphs is about his business career. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Agree with BabbaQ, although to be clear, he isn't actually a royal himself. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So which part do you agree with? The premise of his argument is the evidently untrue assertion that O'Neill is royal. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I stated that he is a Royal person, not that he is a Royal. He has recieved the distinction of Commander of the Royal Order of the Polar Star, as an example by the king. So not an untrue assertion from my side.BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let us not descend to inventing a difference between O'Neill being a royal and O'Neill being a royal person. What else royal could he be? A royal hedgehog? Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with every word wrote, except the first "royal". The main reasons for O'Neill not being royal are because he did not want to give up his American (and British) citizenship for a Swedish one, and because he wished to continue his profession as a businessman. He did not want to become a completely anonymous person (which of course would be impossible), which is the picture you are trying to give here. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never said anonymous. I have only used his own (or the royal court's) words. Millions of people using social media are not anonymous, yet they are not notable either. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Mr Christopher O'Neill has respectfully requested to remain a private citizen and not to be granted royal rank." If this statement by the Royal Court is not enough to establish that Christopher O'Neill wishes to be and functions as a private citizen, then let us compare his role within the Swedish monarchy and in Swedish public life with that of his sister-in-law Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland, who has likewise married into the family. The activities of Sofia (who joined the royal family in 2015) are mentioned 1,130 times in English by the Royal Court. O'Neill (who married in 2013) is mentioned 82 times. The difference is even more striking in Swedish: the Royal Court mentions Sofia's activities 2,720 times and O'Neill 95 times. The numbers speak for themselves, and it would be entirely reasonable to honor the subject's respectful request (especially since the Royal Court does so too, not having a separate entry for him). Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting that the subject has requested that this article be deleted? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. He has, however, requested privacy and no role as a princess's husband - yet this article exists solely because of his marital status. That is contrary to the sentiment expressed by himself and the royal court. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a private citizen means not being a member of the royal family and is very different from wanting privacy which is your basis for deletion of this article. When someone marries a high profile person the limelight is turned on them. If there is sufficient in depth independent coverage of them then notability is met. It is pointless to argue that they would prefer this article not to exist. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * He has articles in over 20 different Wikipedias. Including Sv Wiki. BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions if you wish to portray the subject as notable. So far you have invoked two such arguments, WP:OTHERSTUFF and now WP:OTHERLANGS. Basically, there could be 50 Wiki articles about him, but that would not indicate any notability. Surtsicna (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Compare him to the second husband of Princess Anne the Princess Royal, Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence. Distinguished naval officer, yes, but does every distinguish flag officer of the Royal Navy have a Wikipedia page? No. He has a page because his wife is the Queen's daughter, a British princess. Well, Chris O'Neill is not a superstar in his profession, it's true. He's not Jamie Dimon. However, he's married to the Swedish king's daughter. His children are Royal Highnesses. Look, do what you want. Make a debate over it, whatever. But it's not like the Swedish royal family is that big, not nearly as large as the British royal family, where even Lady Louise has her own page. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacies, and now even a WP:NOTINHERITED: "O'Neill is not a superstar in his profession... however, he's married to the Swedish king's daughter." Do these actually hold any weight with administrators? I have already pointed out that he has no duties as the husband of the Swedish king's daughter, with official sources and an analysis of coverage by the royal court to back it up. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "does every distinguish flag officer of the Royal Navy have a Wikipedia page?" Well, yes, they should have! See WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Nobody seems to be interested in what the sources are like. Do they show notability? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion. I have mentioned and debated the sources above. Do you think people would have !voted Speedy Keep without the sources showing notability. I have mentioned the sources in my rationale. The sources are reliable and shows notability per confirmation of what is stated in the article. I think can confirm that as well. BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, all you said was that they were royal court sources. Are these really enough to pass GNG as in depth coverage in secondary sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To my mind there seems to be 3 sources that meet the requirements, NRK and the 2 SvD articles. Admittedly from what I can gather they are about his role as husband of the princess but they are in depth and in secondary sources. I would have expected the discussion to talk more about these sources than just !voting speedy on presumption of notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, per explanation by BabbaQ en Geekyroyalaficionado. This is again a case of "deletion fetishism". Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet another vote that presents no arguments but instead references fallacies presented by others. Perhaps discussions should be replaced with polling. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, you don't have to reply to every single person leaving a opinion here. You've made your point clear several times, others just simply does not agree with your assessments.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have to, but I choose to do so. My "assessments" are corroborated by official sources and hard data; a mere disagreement amounts to a personal point of view. Wikipedia is built by productive discussion, not by voting. It would be helpful if "every single person leaving an opinion here" would also leave arguments, especially about sourcing, as Dom from Paris has repeatedly suggested. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are good enough for verifiability and the subject passes WP:GNG with flying colours, as far as I'm concerned. As for his role as merely husband to someone who happens to belong to the Swedish royal family, and that he has undertakes no royal duties, well, he's still become part of the family whether he likes it or not, he's been treated much like Sofia or Daniel in the Swedish press, where he has definitely not been out of the spotlight, as the sources here, in the Swedish Wikipedia article and even more so a basic search in Mediearkivet show. It's unfortunate in some ways, but it's not for him to decide. /Julle (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he doesn't meet GNG but can you tell us which sources show this? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Chris O'Neill" or "Christopher O'Neill" give roughly 9000 hits in Swedish newspaper archives, so wading through all the trivial mentions takes a while, but This article in Svenska Dagbladet (one of the dominating and most respected daily newspapers in Sweden) is an in-depth article focusing on O'Neill, for example. "Blivande make med låg profil" in Dagens Industri (available through Mediearkivet, requires subscription) another. Additionally, we have for example a couple of articles in Veckans Affärer focusing on his business practices: En aktivist i kungafamiljen, "Inte inblandad i svenska företag" for non-trivial coverage of his work. /Julle (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As I said when reverting the redirect a few months ago the arguments that he must be notable because he is married to a princess doesn't follow policy. There is no inherited notability. The multitude of passing mentions and court documents are not enough. In depth coverage in independent reliable sources must be found... I even pointed to 3 that are already there but as I do not understand them I cannot comment. The nom and various keep !voters do not address the quality and coverage of the existing sources and are getting bogged down with whether he a "Royal" or a "royal person"... this discussion is going nowhere fast. We just need a couple of valid sources and a keep !vote that points to them to put this to bed. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you ask for his opinion. He answers and gives a good rationale for his opinion. You dismiss it completely and states that the discussion is going nowhere. Its going nowhere for a reason,  let the AfD run its course because I think the closing admin will see this in clear light.BabbaQ (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope you misunderstood me, I am saying his is the first policy based !vote and I am congratulating him!!! Dom from Paris (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. He is not Royal but he is a Royal person per work and appearances. Thank you for that input Julls.BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is usual for spouses of children of ruling houses to have articles. They're notable people in their countries, whether they hold royal rank or not. Well-sourced. And probably notable under WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway as a holder of the Commander of the Order of the Polar Star. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Just because there are articles about people in the same position as him doesn't mean he meets notabilty requirements himself and as per the additional criteria that you have cited from WP:ANYBIO it specifically says " meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". They are pointers to whether the sources to show notability exist or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. OSE is irrelevant here. The reason they have articles is because it is common sense for them to have articles. You cannot with all seriousness claim that spouses of princes and princesses of ruling houses are not notable people. Surely only someone with some sort of republican agenda could possibly claim that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I object to that totally unfounded ad hominem comment. You know nothing about me but as you seem to be interested in me and not what I have said just for your information I am a royalist and am proud to be a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and also able to say that I can trace my family back with no difficulty whatsoever to the 11th century, my family tree also counts Charles II as a member. The pages you talk about may have been created because they are married to members of a royal family but notability is not inherited, try reading WP:INVALIDBIO that should help you understand my argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please reread what I actually wrote. I certainly did not accuse you of having a republican agenda. I made no ad hominem comment (although I certainly apologise if you thought I did). I merely opined that someone who claimed in all seriousness that spouses of princes and princesses of ruling houses are not notable must have such an agenda to make such a comment, since it is obvious that no such person would have a lack of sourcing and they are notable because of their position, just as members of legislatures and senior judges and senior military officers are. Some things just come under the category of common sense and do not need to be spelled out. I know you did not say that; I saw your comment below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is sufficent in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. In this I discount all the kungahuset.se references and notably take into account the sources mentioned by User:Julle on top of the NRK and the 2 SvD articles already cited on the page. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.