Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Doria Pamphilj


 * 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   delete. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * I am proposing that this article is deleted or rather, redirected to Doria-Pamphili-Landi . The article currently lacks any credible indication of the subject's notability outside of that inherited.
 * 1) In Italy, noble or royal titles ceased and are no longer recognized. A claim of ancestry or calling yourself a noble or a prince doesn't make it so. Italy does not recognize Pamphilj's claims of nobility.
 * 2) The article states that he is a descendant of the "Princely house of Doria-Pamphili-Landi - a Genoese family of Roman extraction", however, that bloodline ended at the death of Princess Orietta. Pamphilj is not a descendant of this bloodline.
 * 3) While the art collection may be notable, Pamphilj himself is not, simply as owner and/or curator.
 * 4) While the residence may be considered notable as a building of historical significance, guardianship and management of real estate does not establish notability.
 * 5) Author states that Pamphilj is a significant player in LGBT rights in Italy. However, being gay and marching in a parade does not establish notability. No other information or documentation is provided to support the claims of significance or notability in this manner.
 * 6) Serving as a voice over tour guide in a museum or gallery does not establish notability.
 * 7) Pamphilj has done nothing "independently" to establish notability, outside of his unrecognized claims of nobility? I believe the appropriate action in this case would be to redirect to the Doria-Pamphili-Landi article which mentions him in passing. Cindamuse (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Deletion: Meets WP:Notability criteria which states that, "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". JDP has had coverage in the media ranging from that in the US (New York Times and Vanity Fair), Italy (Corriere della sera and Il Tempo), and the UK (Guardian, Independent, and Telegraph). This coverage relates to his work in managing the internationally famous Palazzo Doria art collection and palace, but particularly because of the high-profile court case that he is involved in to challenge Italian inheritance laws around surrogacy. The case has received more than a trivial mention. The media sources cited have editorial integrity, are mainstream, and are multiple; They are also independent of the subject. The gay rights role is not simply about marching but about challenging the rights over inheritance by children of same-sex parents - thus it is significant for LGBT rights in Italy. Nor is the issue of Italy not recognising noble titles a problem - otherwise why would we have articles on Russian aristocrats or King Constantine of Greece? While I agree the bloodline died out with his mother - he is nevertheless her adopted heir and as such her successor to the lineage etc and is recognised as a prince in international peerage compendiums. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Reply.
 * You state that unprovided coverage relates to his management of an art collection and palace. As I stated above, while the art collection and palace may be notable, Pamphilj's management does not establish notability.
 * Pamphilj is participating in a high profile court case. Interesting to note that this court case involves his challenge to the denial of inheritance established by Italian legislation and ordinance. Notability as a gay rights activist is neither presented nor established due to his participation in this court case. See WP:NOTNEWS.
 * The link provided to www.peerage.com is not an official peerage society, and is highly unreliable, when not accurately sourced to official documentation. It is an individual's genealogical compilation of names connected to royal family lines. His "sources" are generally emails received from fellow genealogists and family researchers. His notations often state "So-and-so wrote me an email, so I included it in the list." He is not recognized as a member of the peerage by any official peerage society. Pamphilj is at best a Pretender.
 * King Constantine of Greece is a disambiguation page providing links to two individuals: Constantine I of Greece accurately titled as King; and Constantine II of Greece, who served as King until the abolition of the monarchy in 1973. Constantine has never officially abdicated and remains a pretender to the Greek throne. That said, Constantine's notability is established as a former king, outside of a pretender's claim to nobility. There is a great divide between the established notability of Constantine I of Greece and the claimed notability (and nobility) of Pamphilj.
 * Lineage refers to descendancy from a common ancestor. Adopted individuals are not lineage "successors". In terms of peerage and royalty, there are successors to a crown or title, but as such, Pamphilj is not recognized by either according to the Italian government. Cindamuse (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I understand the issue with this article. The problem is that he's regarded as a "pretender". Your points above are useful but my original point still stands. The subject is notable because he has received substantial coverage in the international press. Incidentally, if you want a link from the gay press about the significance of the court case to LGBT rights in Italy then I'm happy to provide. And even if the argument on lineage does not stand, he would nevertheless be notable simply by virtue of being the adopted son of Princess Orietta Doria-Pamfilj (who, you must accept, did have a formal title).Contaldo80 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Andrew Duffell (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to keep the article as stand-alone. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been open for 7 days. Is it still premature to close it? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6 days, actually. Favonian (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine - my mistake. I'd taken into account that this article had already (incorrectly) been put under the articles for speedy deletion page for a couple of days. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: After some deliberation, I must agree with Cindamuse's nomination. Pamphilj's media attention is due only to a court case, everything else is tangential, in particular his involvement with the art collection. Regarding the arguments for keeping, Andrew Duffell fails to present any, and the example involving the two Constantines is a bit specious.  Both of them have received massive coverage—more than sufficient for them to pass the general requirements.  Favonian (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I really don't see the value of relisting. What is the point of dragging things out indefinately? We've had 3 interventions. One to redirect and 2 to keep as it stands - surely that's consensus enough. It's not that controversial as a subject, surely. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm disputing the argument put forward by Cindamuse that JDP is not recognised as a prince. This article from The Times states (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6871878.ece) that "Prince Jonathan and Princess Gesine inherited 14 noble titles, two palaces, including a 1,000-room palazzo in central Rome, and one of the world’s greatest private art collections after the death of their adopted mother in December 2000." I'd like to get hold of the Annuario della nobilta Italiana to confirm, but afraid I can. But would welcome contributions from others who may have access to it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consensus is not akin to a vote, but rather viable recommendations, based on established policy and guidelines. As such, consensus has not yet been met, and according to the deletion process, the discussion is appropriately relisted. It is my position that the subject of this article fails notability. The subject has not established notability independent of his family. The "argument" that Pamphilj is not a prince is not mine, but according to the Constitution of the Republic of Italy adopted in 1948, which clearly states that titles of nobility are not recognised. I really don't think a UK newspaper article can override the Constitution (and the yearbook really can't offer support in this situation either). Cindamuse (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Agree with the others above: he does not meet notability requirements. --Marlow59 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone doesn't think he meets the notability requirement then that's fine, but we really do not to give some proper justification please. Nor do I buy the argument about the Italian constitution. There are many examples through history of where aristocrats have continued to retain their titles despite republics not formally recognising them. It's simply disingenuous. And why do we have to establish notability beyond his family links? How odd. That's like saying there shouldn't be an article on Prince William of England, because we only know about him because of who his father is. I mean what else is he notable for? Consensus is not, it seems, going to be achieved on this article - but we have one person who wants to direct, 2 to keep, and one to delete completely (argument why not established).Contaldo80 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 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.