Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ogilvy


 * 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 except signature updates.  

The result was '''No consensus to delete. Multiple verifiable sources do exist for the subject'''. undefinedUntil 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

James Ogilvy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Following discussion at WikiProject Royalty, I am nominating this for deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability. This person does not carry out any royal duties, and the only claims he has is that he is 35th in line to the throne (not high enough to warrant an article in my opinion), and that he is Princess Eugenie of York's Godfather. Bear in mind that being a parent or off spring of a notable person does not confer notability, as per Notability (people) and WP:NOTINHERITED, therefore being a Godfather should not either. —  Tivedshambo  (t 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Mr. Ogilvy has no individual notability for the purposes of an article on Wikipedia. I have always contended that inclusion on a notable list does not make each element of that list notable. Charles 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think he is notable enough. If he is mentioned in the line of succession then naturally one wants to know who he is. Andres (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If he is mentioned in the line of succession, he's mentioned in the line of succession. Do you propose articles for all 1400 or so people? Really now... The elements of a notable list are not all notable. Charles 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Read also this: NOTINHERITED. Charles 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If more info could be added (that Times article seems to be a good source) about his business and things like that. I'm surprised his sister's article was deleted, she at least sparked countrywide controversy with her out-of-wedlock pregnancy and subsequent marriage, so she was at least notable. Flesh out James' article with more info though. He is notable. Morhange (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "that Times article": What Times article? &para; "Countrywide controversy": Maybe among the tut-tutting readers of the Daily Mail; I think other people had other stuff to think about. &para; "He is notable": For what? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless a better claim to notability surfaces. He enjoys some small note as the publisher of Luxury Briefing, but as the magazine itself has a rather low profile I don't think this in itself is enough. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's autoplagiarism time: This chap Ogilvy just tags along to the odd wedding or funeral: no speechifying, no bottle-cracking, no ribbon-snipping. Being in line to the throne is perhaps significant when it's imaginable that those above will all die. I cannot believe that more than twenty (indeed, more likely ten) would disappear other than in a nuclear attack or whatever so ghastly that even the most ardent royalists would be unconcerned about kingship. When he's not wondering about the day when 33 -- no, 34 people have been wiped out by an asteroid, it seems that our man is concerned with the publication of Luxury Briefing, a newsletter for those involved in selling expensive goods and services (says the Telegraph), making money, enjoying his wristwatches, and dreaming of an Alfa Romeo. Well, OK, but not notable or even obviously columnworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: He seems to have been de-Dutched. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability isn't the biggest, best or smartest, its when the media takes notice of you for any reason. The Telegraph and other articles make him notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What are these "other articles"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These articles James Ogilvy in Google News Archive --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see 151 hits for "James Ogilvy". Quite a lot of them are obviously about this or that James Ogilvy who's irrelevant to the one we have here. Of the rest, it's not always clear what the article is about unless/until one hands over the credit card info to buy a copy of the article; however, many give the impression that Ogilvy (probably or definitely this one) is barely mentioned. Of course I can't expect you either to guess what they're all about or to pay money for them, but could you perhaps specify three or so among them that appear to say something significant about our man? -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited. --Veritas (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually I think that he is notable. Axl (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For what? -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This & this. Axl (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The former link tells us that he's just a normal chap who happens to be rather obsessed with expensive goodies and with money. (Very slightly interesting in its revelation that the nobs have no qualms about expressing a fondness for lucre. We can bury the dead concept of infra dig.) The latter one is new to me. It starts with a bit of pseudo-Windows (pretty hilarious when viewed in KDE) saying Congratulations! Guaranteed WINNER! Congratulations you WON! Click 2 [sic] Claim. I ignore that drivel and a pile of other advertising to read that (i) our man has carved out a successful niche as an editor in the publishing world for the past ten years by launching the magazine Luxury Briefing in 1996; that (ii) he claims it is The only business publication for the luxury industy [sic]; that (iii) this costs £375 for ten issues; that (iv) the Ogilvys and Windsors continue to be close, and that in conclusion (v) life really is one of luxury for James Robert Bruce Ogilvy. If this is the only business publication for the luxury industry, then I must have simply hallucinated a great number of others. It's so notable that, well, see for yourself. He's rich and happy and knows people: do write-ups for this in one newspaper column and in one article in an advertising-drenched royalty gossip site constitute notability? -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Notability isn't inherited (although nobility clearly is!). At number 35 in the succession to the British throne, it is surprising there aren't more reliable sources available which have substantial coverage of this individual, whose Mum is the Queen's cousin. It is extremely unlikely he or his descendants will ever become monarch, unless the higher 34 all stand on a metal framework during a storm to get their picture snapped. Edison (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: R A Norton has put a lot of work into the article in the last 24 hours. But we don't learn anything new. Ogilvy was born to famous grandparents, aunties and so forth. His immediate background wasn't just low-rent, it was no-rent (paid for by Mrs E Windsor, as I vaguely understand it). He's had a normal life. He went to a famous wedding, he has two kids, and he founded and publishes Luxury Briefing, about which nobody has bothered to write an article. And that still seems to be it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update Your thinking of the Guinness World Record version of notability where you have to be the biggest, or the best. Wikipedia only requires that you are written about by "multiple independent sources", and that all the facts can be verified. So you can have one biography in the BBC or the Daily Telegraph, and be notable, or have a half dozen smaller articles be the source of the article. He has both. When the media takes note of you, your notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not thinking of the biggest or the best. Ogilvy's had multiple media mentions, as you pointed out earlier. The BBC noted his birth. A gossipy column in the Telegraph wrote him up as a normal person who has a somewhat unusual candor about his love of money and expensive goodies. An advertising-drenched website wrote him up in one page. The media have taken little note, and when they have it has been very minor note. We read: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. For these two gossipy sources, "intellectually independent" is a bit of a stretch. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, either your research skills are lacking, or your the Oliver Cromwell of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article I read seems to show a person whose notability is based on reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When I came across this article the other day, I saw little of notability in the person concerned, and as the article already had a notability tag, I decided to raise a discussion at WikiProject Royalty, expecting members there to come up with good reasons for why he was notable, and hopefully improving the article to prove this. Instead, the only responses were to take to AfD. Since then, R A Norton has done a great deal of work updating the article and providing better references, though whether these reach the standard quoted in full by Hoary above is debatable. I suspect this will go through as no consensus, though I don't envy the admin who has to make the decision. —  Tivedshambo  (t 08:18, 11 March 2008 (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.