Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus Taylor


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Columbus Taylor
As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep With the cluster of Nobility all nominated together, a single discussion might have sufficed. WilyD 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so notable outside of the family context. Did someone say 26th? Merge with Lady Helen TaylorOhconfucius 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 26th in line is like, nowhere. No sources, no press mentions, no nothing. Gnews hits zero. Do not merge with Lady Helen Taylor as mummy is none too notable and the resulting redirect is unwanted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the other article nominated by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for context and completeness in the list of those in line, while 26th place is not terribly notable, he does occupy that spot and this is worth something.Shaylot 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- Astrotrain 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone said to me that votes do not count onless reasond.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've made by position perfectly clear in the discussion pages of the other royal articles you have nominated. Astrotrain 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nod Mad Jack 08:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep although not particularly noteworthy, he is still in line to the throne. Cristien 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * and? Doesnt make him notable.. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * if only for completeness - he is after all a member of the royal family (or close to) and the "line of succession" list can only be enhanced by having information on as many incumbants as possible. Keep ZIGBRYWG 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having an article for every royal is counter-productive, it entices people to create nn bios. Especially if you where 1 millionth in line and can verify this at time of creation, what happens wene your 1 millionth and 1 and cant cite it then? Its counter productuve as it means more work of deleting nn, wasting space etc.. we need a policy of what is not notable. Not a policy to make everyone in the line notable straight away. You wouldnt give a local newspapaer reporter an articlem but he or she has probably done more notable things then 70% + of these royals. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point, however we are not talking about 1 millionth in line to the throne, we are talking about 26th! ZIGBRYWG 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but its extremley unlikely he will ever come to the throne, if and when he has a claim to notability then he could have an article yet. having one "just in case" is unfair to those others who would like one "just in case" if and when he is notable i wouldnt object to an article but at the moment i do. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This really boils down to what an individual deems as "noteworthy" - I consider that someone born into the royal family of the UK and fairly high in the line of succession noteworthy, obviously you do not. We obviously won't agree, so lets see what happens!  And you never know, we live in an age of constant threat of terror, it is not that unplausable that there will be a King Columbus!!!! ZIGBRYWG 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we'd [England] rather get rid of royalty then have a king colombus :| User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At last we agree!!! ;-) ZIGBRYWG 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I've voted to redirect those who are 100+ place markers away, I think being this close in line to royalty is sufficiently notable.  RFerreira 21:25, 18 August 2006 (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.