Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Lascelles

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 no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Lascelles

Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no gnews hits, google hits look to be WP echoes and royalty watching sites, no reliable sources and no sign that the subject meets WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote, please reference the relevant policies and guidelines. The article does not demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:BIO guidelines and the subject is not included in the list of succession at royal.gov.uk, which stops at 39th. Subjects may be included if they fail to meet WP:BIO, but it is necessary to explain why. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are in the line of succession, they are notable. Whatever the royal website wants to do is up to them- it places no obligations on Wikipedia to follow what they are doing. Astrotrain 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no policy quoted so far which says being in line to any office is automatic grounds for inclusion, not even pointed to a guideline which says so. The absence of reporting suggests that this person is completely non-notable and the no facts beyond the trivial ones of their birth and supposed parentage can be verified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some article about his family provided that reliable references are added. Google is not the only place to find reliable sources. Ardric47 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The line of succession on the British monarchy website only goes down to 39 places, I am not aware that any other authoritative reference work goes any further. Therefore any claims about someone's place in the line of succession beyond that is original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. It is not enough that someone is verifiably a descendant of monarchy, can we be sure that they are a Protestant, and that somebody higher up the list has not died or had a baby recently? PatGallacher 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are peerages (books) considered reliable enough? Ardric47 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends exactly what book you are talking about surely. PatGallacher 10:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.