Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Armstrong-Jones

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 in the sense of "not delete". Whether merging or redirection is appropriate can be discussed on the talk pages. Sandstein (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Armstrong-Jones

Charles Armstong-Jones is not royal even though the incidence of his birth places him in line of succession to the British throne. That fact is best recorded there, where he appears, and also on his father's page, where all relevant information has already been merged. This page doesn't really serve to any encyclopedic purpose. The boy is, himself, not a non-notable individual within a notable group which already has a page. Charles 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason (younger sister):

Delete/merge as nominator. Charles 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley as a plausible search term, but a person of insufficient notability to really warrant an article. As per previous discussions exactly where someone in the line of succession has to be to be notable for that alone is fairly vague, but I think this fellow is low enough, young enough and non-notable enough that a separate article serves little purpose. ~ mazca ^talk 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also leaning towards a merge, but we should note that there are some wider issues here. This issue has come up in deletion discussions before. Just how important do minor royals have to be to become inherently notable? I would draw the line at the grandchildren of a monarch, but it seems other would draw it lower. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Notability (people) for this sort of discussion. It shouldn't be had here since it has a broader scope than this article and has been hashed time and time again on these AfDs. Charles 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a line can be established generally at any particular generation or relationship to a sovereign. Notability means that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sometimes a son of a sovereign has not received such coverage, but the great-niece may have. Notability is not the same as "importance" or "closeness to a throne"; it is purely a matter of whether somebody has written about the topic, and therefore Wikipedia should summarize what has been written. I regret that in this discussion there has been virtually no mention of the published sources (although there are some). Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley as a plausible search term. I'm sticking with my rule of thumb that holders of titles are notable, monarchs and successors are notable, but only the progeny of monarchs or heirs apparent should be inherently notable (any other members of the family will have to pass normal WP:N). There's a fair chance as an adult he will pass, but not as an 8-year-old. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting KEEP because I think short, separate articles are appropriate for people this high up in the succession. An article for a cousin further down in the succession -- Marina-Charlotte Windsor, was not deleted after a similar AFD debate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he won't be this high up the succession for ever. There are by my calculation 8 people under 30, all currently childless, higher than him in the succession, it's likely most of them will have kids before long. If the British monarchy survives in its present form then he will probably slip quite substantially down the succession in his lifetime, and he could easily slip significantly in the next few years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but at the moment these two kids are 14th and 15th in line to the throne; they are considered of enough note for their presence to be noted, at some length, in the London Telegraph article and probably also in some other national magazines that have not been referenced. The London Telegraph considered them notable. Charles deleted what he terms "cruft" and "fluff" from the article on Margarita Armstrong-Jones. The "cruft" and "fluff" was from the Daily Telegraph article, which is generally regarded as a serious newspaper. I continue to think that these people warrant their own separate short articles and would vote to keep them as they are rather than to merge them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally regarded" being operative. Everyone has their slip-ups. Charles 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that it's your opinion that this was a "slip-up." In my opinion, they covered an event that their readers found of interest and described relatives of the queen whom their readers wanted to know something about. That's "notability." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had intended to remain neutral in this debate, since I have no interest in this family whatsoever. However, I have now done a search on Factiva, the largest database of newspaper articles. A search for "Charles Armstrong-Jones" comes up with 26 hits; some of these are references to his father (who has the baptismal name Charles). In addition there are other hits if one searches for "Armstrong-Jones" and "Charles". Most of these hits are mere mentions-in-passing. However, in addition to the articles about his birth and baptism, there is at least one article which is specifically about the individual, "The royal page boy who said 'I won't' at his Uncle William's wedding" (April 29, 2001). To me, this individual is unimportant, and I think it ridiculous that a newspaper would devote articles to him. However, it is undeniable that he is repeatedly the subject of news coverage (whether earned or not). This makes him notable. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Noel. Would saying "I won't" get anyone into an encyclopedia? He is not notable by any stretch of the word. I am not about to write an article on a friend of mine who has appeared in the New York Times, the Providence Journal, on CBS and on Dateline just because they were on those things because really it is not just that something is "there", its real importance has to be taken into account. Charles 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His relationship to the royal family and place in the line of succession makes him notable. Is he particularly important in and of himself as yet? No. But he is of some interest. I don't know if your pal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not, not knowing his name. Maybe he is. Coverage in national media actually is of some note, though he isn't the subject of this particular debate. Granted, I'm more of an "inclusionist" than you apparently are. If it's of interest to someone, I think it deserves an article, provided it's properly referenced. These articles were, for the most part. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read: WP:INTERESTING. Charles 10:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, I take an inclusionist position. These kids are notable because of their position in the line of succession, because they're relatives of the queen, and because they have been written about in the national press. Both articles are referenced. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. et al. D B D 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the top 20 or so in line to the throne would seem to be automatically notable. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, as recently shown. Charles 23:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not because he is in line for the British throne, but because he is second "in line" to be the Earl of Snowdon. He will, barring some unlikely catastrophe, never be King of the UK, but he WILL (unless he predeceases his father and/or grandfather) hold a title in the future. Some of the young heirs (that is, the heir to the heir) to other lesser-known titles have articles. Margarita's article I could understand being deleted, and should the Linleys have another son, he wouldn't need an article, but since Charles is going to be the future Viscount Linley, and then Earl of Snowdon, I would say keep his article, but Delete his sister's. Morhange (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about we worry about that when/if he becomes a peer, not because he may become one. Charles 10:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (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.