Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Guillermo

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. Extremely close to becoming a delete; but the delete arguments weigh just above the keep arguments, but not enough for it to be called a 'consensus'. Another AfD may be initiated. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Guillermo

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

This seems to be about a rather obscure person who is distantly related to the Dutch royal family by means of his mother. Of course he might get a mention or two in the odd press article because of this but other than that, he seems to lack substantial coverage and appears to be like any other private individual with a relatively well-known parent. Re5x (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too outlying a member of a royal family to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've added two additional sources. – Editør (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't think "too outlying" is a good argument for deletion. There are multiple reports about him in Dutch main stream media. The article should not be deleted, unless there is a convincing argument that these reports don't establish notability. – Editør (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as "significant coverage" (sadly) and notability is not intherited.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per talk's defense. If this isn't notable then a purge of many (many) European royals would be in order. --NoGhost (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not even royalty... Only related and I guess a great deal many would be if they looked far back enough. --Re5x (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient sources for notability, only gossip-level coverage. Sandstein 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per above. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:18, 25 March 2017 (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.