Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James, Viscount Severn


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

James, Viscount Severn

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article refers to the 2-year-old child of British nobles. I suppose this is both a deletion proposal and a question: does the mere fact of nobility confer notability? Because so far this boy's done nothing aside from being born. I personally don't think that, plus a title, should be enough to establish notability. "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Information from the Viscount's page could be merged into the Wikipedia pages of one or both of his parents. Leoniceno (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The noble tyke deserves only to be mentioned in his father's article, at least until he has done something notable in his own right. Notability, unlike nobility, is not inherited. Edison (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a child notable for more than a courtesy title. The simple fact of being the Queen's youngest grandchild is likely to ensure continuous coverage. The article states that he has already had a lake named after him. ("In June 2008, to recognise a visit by his father to the province of Manitoba, the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba-in-Council named a lake in the north of the province after Viscount Severn.[citation needed]") Eastmain (talk • contribs)  01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Viscount. Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable and well sourced. Outback the koala (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "British nobles"? They're royals! For crying out loud. Close. DBD 06:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentNot everyone outside a kingdom is impressed by someone being "royal." Please take a look at WP:BIO and state which criterion little James satisfies. Is it as a politician? Being related to someone does not seem to be enough, except to be mentioned in the relative's article. Edison (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, he is a British prince, and a member of the royal family (technically in line for the throne, although its highly unlikely thats gonna happen), even if he is not styled as such. For me, the notability is clear. BTW - I am not British, if that is what you were implying. Outback the koala (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OOH! Shiny! A PRINCE! Where in WP:BIO does it grant inherent notability to every prince from every country? Edison (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think DBD's point was that nobility and royalty are two different things (legally, at least) and that the nominator's rationale gets them hopelessly muddled. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on being the one to get it, David... Bloody fools. DBD 07:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He's a grandson of the Queen and, what, eighth in the line of succession? While some people might not care about that, many do. The fact that I and others like me don't care about (and don't understand the hubbub about Lady GaGa doesn't mean she isn't notable and her article should be deleted. By the same token, the fact that some people aren't terribly interested in the royals doesn't mean they aren't notable. -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Grandson of arguably the most well-known monarch in the world, member of the immediate royal family, British prince, eighth in line to the throne, a future Duke of Edinburgh. Sounds notable to me. Morhange (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a member of the most notable royal family in the world as well as the grandson of the current reigning monarch automatically makes him notable. In addition, he is a Viscount and has a lake named after him! So by what criteria does this article not meet the Wikipedia standards of notabilty?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the many reasons above. The nominator appears to be suggest he's the son of any normal earl, rather than the son of the Queen's son. --UpDown (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, especially Rrius, Morhange, and UpDown. The usual outcomes at WP:AfD has been to keep articles about royalty, especially someone so close to the British Monarchy.  Such a well sourced article makes this an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2010 (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.