Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

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 redirect to Earl of Ulster. Consensus is there isn't sufficient sourcing to establish notability for this particular member of the royal family, regardless of whether others might be. The history is under the redirect if there's a desire to merge some of the material. Star Mississippi 14:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What makes this person notable? He is associated with British nobility, but that doesn't make him automatically notable. I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV about him outside short catalog-like entries generated for all British nobles of similar level. My BEFORE failed to find anything, WP:NBIO does not appear to be met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Earl of Ulster - To my great surprise, there is just not enough out there to support a stand alone article. According to sources such as this is somewhere like 14th or so in line for the British throne. Even by a failed proposal to allow all royal family members eighth in line or below would not have enabled him to have a standalone article. I went pretty deep into books. How can someone so deep into the royal family not have coverage? That is surprising. However this would sort of be a "but there must be sources" argument, so its a delete from me unless someone finds the RS to back an argument for keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, is there a policy about having a BLP's full name and DOB on a page? Given this appears to have these details for the whole family, this seems a tad.. unnecessary.. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do. This is an encyclopaedia and these details are in the public domain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've discovered it is more complicated than that. WP:DOB JMWt (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. As in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Earl of Ulster ~~Shared MaxnaCarta's sense of surprise, search threw up nothing whatsoever. And that means he's a non-notable noble.~~ Agree with MaxnaCarta's reasoning to redirect to Earl of Ulster as an alternative to deletion! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb I've changed to redirect to Earl of Ulster it makes sense I reckon! MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like all children of the Queen's royal cousins, he easily has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, especially dating from when he was younger, as young members of the royal family generate massive interest. Note that, given his age, most of this won't be easily accessible online (see WP:OFFLINE). Also note that one day he will be Duke of Gloucester, which, although it will no longer be a royal dukedom, is still one of the most significant titles in the British aristocracy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am stuck @Necrothesp. While I have participated in hundreds of XFD, this is the first time I have ever seen a member of the royal family at XFD. Both you and the nominator are highly experienced. I am very much open to advice and counsel here. Voting delete for this did not feel right. I mean I was like "Surely there is something out there?. But there is legit nothing even in books, and I also did a search on EBSCO. As a student at University of Melbourne, I did a search across our eleven libraries and there is nothing available. Heck, even a Google book search on "Earl of Ulster" generates results for previous earls dating back to 1600, yet not this fella? Deleting this just does not feel right. Regardless of status does a person not need significant coverage? If you say he easily has it, where? I am legit stumped. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's plenty of coverage in newspapers in his younger days. Nothing particularly "in depth" maybe, but he's hardly that obscure. I maintain that the chldren of the royal dukes are notable. Note the recent AfD discussion for one of his cousins. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp "Well, there's plenty of coverage in newspapers in his younger days. ". Uh, ok, can you link it? And if it's not "in depth", well, WP:SIGCOV is failed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does one link to a 1980s newspaper?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are online archives. But while offline citations are perfectly acceptable, trouble is there aren't any given. Perhaps we might Draftify if you're intent on looking for them, but in the abstract that seems a lot like a "there must be a pony in there somewhere" line of reasoning. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Ulster. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant his own page (which I am also genuinely surprised about), but as a member of the Royal Family, he could be a common search term and redirects are WP:CHEAP. I would consider British royal family to be a suitable target as well, but he is not mentioned by name in that page at all. Frank Anchor 14:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Ulster. My university library had zero significant coverage in any databases, including the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, and The Times. I did find a birth announcement, and a couple passing mentions. Nothing that would count as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, if there's anything that's appropriate to merge. Seems like a classic case of "must be notable just by virtue of existing", where the sources really don't stand that up. (Beyond that mere fact, which can readily be covered elsewhere.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Royal Family. Plenty of coverage around. From his birth, childhood (article in the Illustrated London News 2 July 1988), People reporting the birth of son, notable guests at the Queen's funeral (search google news for "earl of ulster" funeral). There's probably more offline especially about serving in Iraq with Prince Harry Piecesofuk (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me those look like press releases and fail SIGCOV. Well, I can only access the first link, but it's one short paragraph, 2-3 sentences. That's not indicative of significance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the number of sources should also be considered when determining notability:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Piecesofuk (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but is this not trivial coverage? His birth, people reporting birth of his son, etc. seems very much trivial coverage to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, then I think up to half the bio articles in Wikipedia easily meet deletion criteria. Seems a bit odd to me that someone around 30 in line to the throne is not notable enough, yet 16 year old wannabe pop stars who write their own bios are. My point here being that the very fact there is nothing in the public domain about the Earl actually does make him notable! Maybe someone could contact him through Buck house for comment, or to ask him if he wants to be deleted?92.12.84.72 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel other articles fail WP:SIGCOV, then you're free to nominate them for deletion, but that has no bearing at all here. You may be unimpressed by the efforts of people who achieve celebrity through their own endeavours (... such as those might be...), but if secondary sources are still less taken with the "person with very posh title does utterly quotidian thing that would otherwise attract no comment whatsoever", why should Wikipedia, given our rather clear sourcing policies? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a member of the British royal family by any of the definitions of it: he does not hold a royal style; he does not appear on the royal family's website; he is not listed as a member of the royal family by the lord chamberlain, etc. Even if he were, that alone would not be enough; per WP:INVALIDBIO, a mere relationship to someone notable is not grounds for inclusion. He either is covered in reliable sources to a significant extent or is not. Can we please start citing some non-trivial coverage? Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Gazette he's a member of the royal family Piecesofuk (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He could be a member of the First Martian Hoochie-Coochie Trumpet Band, but with no WP:SIGCOV and no guideline that tells us that members of that band are automatically presumed notable, we are guided by policy such as WP:BIOFAMILY. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a twenty-year-old source, during which time there's been a new monarch, abolition of the Act concerned, and him getting bumped a few more slots down the list by fresh more-royal-than-thou spawn. But it might be argued he's a member of the RF by the laxest possible definition: i.e. the former scope of that Act, which is all Chaz's cousins, however many times removed. By which logic we should also have an article on Flora Vesterberg too? Either he passes the general notability guideline, or he doesn't -- and it looks very much like the latter. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earl of Ulster, not independently notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have enough material in the article. Title holders in the UK are generally considered notable, especially those close to the Royal family. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. And he's not even strictly speaking a title holder: "Earl of Ulster" is a courtesy title, being a substantive title of his daddy. Which according to the article he doesn't even normally use. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2022 (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.