Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews


 * 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. The arguments to keep are generally somewhat weak, but some SIGCOV has been shown, and we can't discount it simply because it concerns things that wouldn't be covered in non-royalty. My personal inclination is to delete, but there's consensus to keep here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Being a relative of British royalty doesn't make one automatically notable. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him that I see. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: I am going to relist this one due to the ongoing discussion between Piecesofuk and Piotrus. However, I almost closed this as a delete due to the weakness of everyone but Piecesofuk's keep contribution. I would like to remind editors that notability is not inherited. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 10:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once again, British royals, especially when younger, have major coverage in the media. He will also one day be Duke of Kent, one of the pre-eminent titles of the British aristocracy (we have not yet, I believe, deleted any article about a duke). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "have major coverage in the media". This needs to be demonstrated - the article certainly does not do so. Also, note that trivial coverage like two-three sentences that "Noble/royal ex. had a child or got married or divorced", which I expect we could find a few if we dug through newspaper archives, are trivial and don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Was he the subject of multiple, in-depth newspaper pieces? As for whether Dukes are auto-notable, please quote a relevant policy, and if they are, well, we can revisit this WHEN he becomes a duke. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have. Pilaz (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite, since a large part of the argument there was that he wasn't a duke. Jahaza (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as member of the Royal Family: plenty of coverage in newspaper archives of his birth, christening, marriage etc. Plenty of books covering royal children feature him, for example there are about ten pages about him in 'My Young Friends-': The Queen's Young Family Piecesofuk (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Was born, baptised, married... Like majority of population. Have we obtained any non-trivial information? Mpn (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piecesofuk I have reviewed the 10 pages work. It's not exactly 10 pages (there are illustrations taking some space, and the font is big and there's lot of empty spaces), but that's a technicallity. Arguably, this source may meet WP:SIGCOV, good find, although it's just one. GNG requires multiple such sources. Can you point out another one that satisfies SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above there are plenty of books about royal children that cover him that can be searched on archive.org, maybe not as substantial as the one I mentions above but not trivial, for example The Kents, Royal Children, Royal children of the twentieth century He was the target of an IRA kidnap plot in 1971 which got plenty of coverage: U.K.: Police Place Armed Guard After Threat To Kidnap Young Member Of Royal Family , search in British Newspaper Archive . Also his wedding was controversial: Sunday Independent (Dublin) - Sunday 10 January 1988 Earl's wedding makes history, Irish Independent - Monday 11 January 1988 Hideaway Royal couple search in British Newspaper Archive  Piecesofuk (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the sources are paywalled, except the first one, which I don't think meets WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS. If a plot to kindap him or his wedding generated coverage, well, that's coverage of the plot, and of his wedding, not of him. WP:NOTINHERITED. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is notable, and quite interesting and he is the son and heir of the Duke of Kent. WiltedXXVI (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why is it notable? Pilaz (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as he (is expected) be the next Duke of Kent. cookie monster   755  03:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles consisting only of family history fail WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Consequently, newspaper coverage about genealogical topics is immaterial to notability. The only content that is not genealogical, the succession issues, is unsourced. Members of a royal family are not automatically notable, see WP:MONARCH.  Sandstein   10:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Maybe TOOSOON? 41st in line to the crown isn't notable, maybe when his father dies and he assumes the full title he'd be better for GNG. Anything this far down the peerage is essential just another rich Joe with a fancy title. I mean he has to pass GNG, but I don't see anything he's done that another same/similar person does, marries, attends Mass, rather routine stuff. He hasn't invented cold fusion or something ground-breaking. Appears to have been chancellor of a university circa 2017, not sure how that colours the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning non-notable, if that helps the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment His being chancellor of the University of Bolton raises the question of whether he meets the standard of holding a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Chancellor is a ceremonial post. The highest-level administrative post at British universities is vice-chancellor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can never keep track of which title has which meaning in which system. The guideline mentions that this differs among countries, but maybe we should go more into specifics somewhere. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree with the nominator that this gentlemen isn't automatically notable because of his royal relations. Yet, Piecesofuk has identified newspaper sources that seem to indicate he is perhaps more notable than other relatives. I'd suggest keeping for now and adding that information into the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC).
 * Keep. He passes WP:GNG; there are sources which provide more information about him than just genealogy, such as . --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons given by others above. --Bduke (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Joyrimpau (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Le sigh. Keep, I guess. Royalty are just influencers these days, but with a more ardent fan base. However, there are sources for notability. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Ceremonial post at a university and 41st in line for the throne aren't notable. I'd be willing to change my !vote if the man accomplished something/anything of note, rather than just going about his business. Did he found any notable philanthropic thing or start some renown festival? He just appears to sit on various boards/working groups, none of which are anything special. "Rich guy works with a charity" is how I'm reading what it boils down to. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As piecesofuk has shown above, he has been noted...a lot. That's sufficient. 128.252.16.235 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sources over time to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There is insufficient information about this subject in reliable sources to write a balanced article. There is also no presumed notability based on family or title. The title is actually curtesy, the subbstantial title belongs to his father. It would be better as a redirect to the royal family article. TFD (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with those above that simply being related to/a member of the royal family is not alone enough for notability. But I do think 'next in line to be Duke of Kent' is more than just being in the royal family, and there are a range of other roles here which strongly indicate notability. Being the chancellor of a university, for instance, is far from inconsequential, even if it is mostly ceremonial. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2022 (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.