Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nikola of Yugoslavia (born 1958)

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. Wide agreement here that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s criterion of notability for an article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nikola of Yugoslavia (born 1958)

[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)

This is an incredibly obscure person. He does no princely stuff whatsoever and one would be hard pressed to find references to him in the media. Genealogy publications are virtually the only sources that can verify that he even exists. Whatever he does in life he does very privately and subtly, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to cover him. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater @ 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been flagged as having multiple problems for some time. It is also unlikely that he is a Protestant, which he would have to be to put him in the UK line of succession. PatGallacher (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs include two user-generated sources and two primary sources, all of which mention him only in passing. JoelleJay (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grandchildren of ruling monarchs are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Where? That's classic WP:INVALIDBIO. That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. Everyone's notability is dependent solely on significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention he wasn't born until after the abolition of the monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, as a general rule grandchildren of monarchs may tend to be regarded as notable, but this also tends to apply if they are part of an actually reigning royal family. PatGallacher (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear fail of WP:GNG, only sources are primary or unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page hasn't any reliable source about the notability.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a total lack of any sign of notability. Being part of a deposed royal house does not make one notable, and not every descendant of Queen Victoria is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notability isn't inherited, unlike nobility. Being the long lost grand child of someone notable, doesn't make them notable even if they are nobility unless they are pretty much next in line to cede the throne. If that weren't the case, I'd have an article. After all, my 7th grandfather or so is George Washington (and no, i'm not proud of it.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2020 (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.