Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas van Straubenzee


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thomas van Straubenzee

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

Article has been tagged for notability for a year with no sufficient improvement. Clearly does not meet WP:NBIO or specifically WP:BASIC namely having not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Having looked through the sourcing I'm struggling to identify even a single suitable source meeting the criteria of significant coverage. Cannot inherit notability by connection with the British royal family. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-defined nom. "Property advisor of the year" MNewnham (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: coverage is routine things, marriage announcement and having a kid, seemingly hanging on to his connection to the royal family. Non-notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Very much celebrity fluff articles is typical Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (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.