Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 as improved per the so-called "Heymann" standard of improvement. While the arguments to merge are colorably good, there is no strong argument to delete outright. The article is well-referenced per the rules on recognizing good sources, and those sources provide significant coverage per the rules for significant coverage on general notability. I'm going to go with a keep, but this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James William Middleton

James William Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reminder to closing admin. The article in question was protected from editing and improvement for several days, please take this into account when determining a day to close and extend accordingly. (thanks - Avanu)

This biography of a living person appears to be based on inherited notability, viz. his sister, who is notable in her own right. Notability is not inherited. Sources also suggest that he is mainly known for the one event - his sister's wedding - and I see more gossip and trivia than substantive information. NellieBly (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KeepThis is so ridiculous, the same thing someone tried to do to Pippa Middleton's page. These people are of high nobility that shouldn't even be questioned. His sister is the future Queen of England, if he isn't 'notable' for some now, he will be in the future, he's only 24 or something. We have articles on every member of Princess Diana's family and they married into royalty as well, sure they had some titles of their own, but still. People want to know information about these people and it's relevant for Wikipedia to have articles about them available. Maybe some are just jealous. :) (Rharrington 03:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He gets coverage for his famous cakes and other things besides this one event. Dream Focus 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For clarification purposes for those editors who are not experts in the UK/Commonwealth honour system: the sister and brother of Kate Middleton are normal everyday middle-class people, as Kate was before she met William. They are not "high nobility" (and likely don't want to be) and are not "dukes" or other peers, nor are they in line to inherit or be granted a peerage just because their sister married a member of the Royal Family. They are also absolutely not in any way, shape, or form members of the Royal Family - the Royal Family is composed of the Queen's descendants and their spouses, plus a few descendants of earlier sovereigns who perform royal duties. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Notability is not inherited in this case. Having a sister who is a duchess doesn't make someone notable, and he's obviously not a duke. AniMate 04:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although obviously not as well covered in the media as his sister Kate, James has been the subject of a number of articles in reliable news sources and is clearly of public interest. I believe he meets WP:N and therefore !vote for the article to be kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is clearly of public interest: James Middleton gave the Bible reading during the marriage ceremony in Westminster Abbey of HRH Prince William of Wales and Miss Kate Middleton. Digital journal reports that Google search surge auto-suggests 'James Middleton gay' and Pink News reports that within seconds of his beginning to speak, "hundreds of people asked on Twitter and other social media networks if he is gay [though] there is no evidence to suggest that he is". -- 78.35.72.233 (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject was winning awards and getting coverage for his business activities years ago and so his notability does not depend upon his sister. As a topic, this has far greater notability than topics of the nominator's creation such as Manitoba Provincial Road 200. Our editing policy mandates the keeping of such well-sourced information as deletion would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the brief blast of royal wedding mania is pushing us into ever further reaches of WP:NOTINHERITED & ever more tenuous connection to this WP:BLP1E. (And WP:PRESERVE is not the sum of WP:Editing policy, is not to be read in isolation from other relevant policies, and such a balanced reading is not "disruptive".) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability:

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability."

"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO1E#People_notable_for_only_one_event

"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO1E#Invalid_criteria

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person."

-- Avanu (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have all that. The subject has received coverage and awards for his business activities. In the case of the 1E, he had a significant part as the only person to be reading a lesson before an audience of billions. These facts are well-covered by numerous reliable sources and so the topic has notability in spades. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you covered BIO-1E, what about ""The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest"? -- Avanu (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That Google search surge auto-suggests a term in regard to his name is as significant proof for public interest to him autonomous. -- LeoDavid (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google search is not a Reliable Source. In an effort to demonstrate independent notability, I reviewed the existing References in the Article, and they are all heavily related to Kate Middleton. This does not demonstrate independent notability, and coincidentally enough, the References themselves make mention of this. If you want to save this, you need to find evidence of Independent Notability or merge this to Kate Middleton (or similar) -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. I know Google search is not a Reliable Source. But the fact is, that this search engine giant auto-suggests a term in regard to someone's name is notable, because this was/is catching the attention of the media. And, as you know how search engines work, there`s a countable backgrund, named public interest. -- LeoDavid (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt, Google will try to find what people are looking for. But the question in relation to Wikipedia, is whether this notability is independent of his sister and her wedding. Example -- Avanu (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, like Prince Harry is the only brother of the future King, James Middleton is the only brother of the future Queen consort. This is a unique feature offered by him, thus he'll stay in public interest to the death, to his cost or for his delectation. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So are you claiming that he has no independent notability? Another way to put it, is he "James Middleton, person of note for his own endeavors" (aka notable) or is he "Kate's brother" (not notable) ? -- Avanu (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That claim relies upon a whole heap of WP:CRYSTAL and a particularly selective & narrow view (a 'special pleading') of which relationships are of "public interest". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, "crystal ball"? So why, in your opinion, the Duke of Cambridge is notable? Not because he's the future king? Oh boy. And, by the way, why is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor notable? Because she's the child of the child of ... (and an also-ran ninth in line of succession). Anyway Keep. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the same "crystal ball" that would have said, a generation ago, that Willy's mother was a "future Queen consort". And look how that turned out. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon! This claim is sarcastic and absolutely impious. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is merely suggesting that you are indulging in 'counting your chickens before they hatch'. Given the frequency of British Royal Divorces (Margaret, Anne, Charles & Andrew) in the last couple of generations, a degree of healthy skepticism is in no way "impious". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this might sound silly, but is James Middleton's dog also notable by the same logic? What about his girlfriends? What about his ex-girlfriends? Or the guy who washes his car? I know I'm being a bit silly here, but this is the same point we're asking about. The cutoff in Wikipedia is "independent notability", not notability because they are associated with someone notable. Matthew Broderick is not notable for being Sarah Jessica Parker's husband, but for his many films. Likewise, the question is whether James Middleton is notable on his own or not. If you can name his notability (by Wikipedia standards) outside of being related to Kate, then he passes that test. Otherwise, he gets merged. -- Avanu (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To speak of the devil is no clairvoyance? Fess up: why is, for example, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor notable? An eight-year-old. -- LeoDavid (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leo, that is a discussion and a question for that article. We can't fix every article at once, and to bring up outside articles only invites this discussion to become wildly off track. -- Avanu (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, You have no logical answer. But there's a significant analogy between both articles. -- LeoDavid (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a logical answer. I could sit here and debate the pros and cons of this article, then we could simultaneously debate the pros and cons of any other article you decide to bring in for analogy's sake. The problem is that such a discussion would become more and more unmanageable. Its entirely possible that the Lady Louise article is also not notable, but that is a discussion best left to that article, and not an endless debate here. -- Avanu (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(i) The question is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS & thus irrelelvant (ii) "Lady Louise is ninth in line of succession to the thrones of 16 independent states" may give her slightly more notability than 'brother in law of the second in line of succession'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that he is now notable however it happened. The guidleline saying that notability is not inherited cannot be taken literally. Firstly, it isn't a firm rule - as I have pointed out elsewhere it does not apply to the children of US presidents, whenever they lived, and there are lots of other examples. Secondly, it is a useful guideline for structuring articles, and you would, for example, expect to read about a film star's family in the article about her. But if a child grows up and starts being written about for themselves even though they may only have come to attention in the first place because of that relationship they will graduate to their own article under the General Notability Guidelines. Thirdly, it is the relationships between people and things (I'm using the term in the Wikipedia sense of more than just blood ties) that defines the world and gives it structure. Wikipedia acknowledges this through its Orphan policy. It is only fair to add that it was the nominator of Pippa Middleton for deletion who commented that James Middleton's case for inclusion seemed stronger than hers. There was overwhelming support for keeping her. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable defense of your position. Its refreshing to see. :) -- Avanu (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There was plenty of coverage of him before the wedding, and there has been plenty since and it will continue. If he had not done a reading, or even not attended the wedding, that still would have been the case. The cause of his fame is that he is the brother of Kate Middleton.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please most of the coverage before the wedding with even a mention him was in the context of looking forward to the wedding and along the lines of check out the embaressing/chavvy in-laws to be. The coverage of him and pippa mostly showed no notability in them just pointing our they would stick out greatly among the royalsNirame (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ: [1]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So, James was an independently notable cake maker well before the wedding yes? Well, no. The earliest reference in the article is from 1 Oct 2008, and introduces James as "the younger brother of Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William". The peice covers James as one of four business people, the others being Maria Balfour, Marcus Waley-Cohen and Alex Finlay. All are unsurprisingly, red links. Marcus's business at least has an article, but is tagged for having no references. And also, none of James businesses, or the Middleton family business even, has any article. And his awards? Well, we have no article on Smarta 100 or Haines Watts Young Entrepreneur. And the reader cannot even tell the how/s what's/whys of those awards. All of this is....surprising, given the premise. Sure, he's made cakes for notable entities, but using that as a claim to notability itself is no different to arguing he's automatically notable as someone's sister. By now, it should be beyond obvious that this is a smokescreen for the real argument, that by making a reading at the wedding, he surpasses BLP1E. Well, if people really believe this stuff when they write it, then by all means, go and try and replace this as the example in the policy, as being a Presidential assassin is clearly setting the bar way too high. You'll soon find out how off base you really are. Oh, and he's not a Duke. He is though apparently a cross dressing probably gay man according to Wikipedia now, and forever more. Anyway, someone was talking about attempts to prevent the root causes of these blatant BLP violations and attacks on Wikipedia as a credible biographer was disruption yes? Interesting theory that. I wonder who's next to be wikipised. I'm guessing the parents. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted above, his only claim to fame (besides the wedding) is a series of bakeries. However, the only currently used reference that dates to before William and Catherine's engagement is this one... and even then the first sentence of the blurb on him mentions that he is Kate Middleton's brother as a reason the reader might have heard of him, showing that WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:1E apply. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, he is only getting this coverage because is Kate's brother. Hence why so many profiles of him published after they announced their engagement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This should be a very simple case of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E he is notable for being the brother of some one notable, and the test of that is would we know anything about him if his sister had never met William, and the answer to that is no we would not. He has revived a huge amount of coverage (more than others need to have to be kept at AfD - I will come on to this later), he is without question a likely search term so at least this needs to be changed to a redirect and not deleted. However if WP can have a article on for example Steven Akers which was overwhelmingly kept at WP:AFD with only minor coverage then this should, given the scale of the coverage of this person probably be also kept. I do think the idea of User:DBD to crate a Middleton family article does have some merit and after the fuss of the last week has died down then suspect that is what might happen.Mtking (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Middleton family and as per User:HJ Mitchell protect the redirect. Mtking (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge: As long as the information is locatable via redirect, I don't really care under which lemma it appears, either Middleton Family or James William Middleton. But let's be honest here: is Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes really relevant because she is the daughter of a minor earl? That would seem to be the only difference between her and James Middleton. Surely being a cake maker is at least as good a claim to relevance as being the daughter of a minor earl. And if we are honest, we will realise that the media did not cover either of these people for those reasons, and that media coverage is what really leads to notability in the first place. And who among us honestly thinks that this week marks the last we will hear in the press about James?--Bhuck (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Brother of the future Queen? Of course he is notable! Plus, it is not just about him attending the wedding but because he is related to The Duchess of Cambridge by a degree and he would thus become ever more notable as time passes. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 09:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some people seem to misunderstand WP:NOTINHERITED, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It's simply not true that he is not notable if "we know not anything about him if his sister had never met William." It doesn't matter at all why or how people get coverage - if it is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, then he is notable. And this is what we have in this case. StAnselm (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm, I'm afraid you have this reversed. The page says "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions" and has "Notability is inherited" as one of the things to avoid. You need to look at the page, not just the link that leads you there. -- Avanu (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As notable as Pippa (and yeah, that's a !vote) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, somewhat reluctantly. He seems to technically meet our notability criteria, although I'm not exactly thrilled about the current state of the article--looks like a BLP disaster waiting to happen. Do we really have to mention that he once mooned a friend of his and that his sister laughed when she found out? Hey, that could be his hook at DYK: ...that the future Queen's brother once mooned a friend of his and that his sister laughed when she found out? Qrsdogg (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comment, looks like someone bolder than I fixed this up a bit. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge). There is simply no article here. 95% of it is lifted from the articles on his sister. Good grief, are we going to have articles on every Middleton repeating the same family information. The other option would be to merge this into an article on "the family of Kate Middleton".--Scott Mac 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that's a pretty silly claim, considering this "95%" you reference was just added by me in an attempt to flesh out the article and has since been reverted due to alleged BLP violations. Even without the information, there are a number of sources on the page that are not simply rehashings of what's been stated on his sisters' pages. Regardless, it's pretty obvious that when two (or more) people have the same parents and grew up in the same "early life" situation that the information for that section would be the same. Even if the stuff you are referencing hadn't been deleted, I see no reason why the fact that it's the same as on Kate's or on Pippa's when it holds true for all three of them is grounds for deletion. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course there's a high overlap, since all his importance comes from his family. When articles substantially overlap we merge (if they have independent notability). The material removed was salacious tabloid tittle-tattle which has no business with an encyclopedia.--Scott Mac 16:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment is it fair to other users that a person voting to delete then locks the article so others cannot edit and possibly improve it to wiki standards.Nirame (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking about it some more, and I think the offspring of royalty is a completely different topic, and should not be weighed in this discussion. Offsprings of royalty inherit some form of nobility, whereas Pippa and James do not, and should be notable on their own. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new article, I'd be inclined to agree with some of the previous comments that the notability for each family member is probably only inherited from their daughter and in-laws. However, there is an interest out there so I wonder if, as other editors have suggested, a joint article on the Middleton family or Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge or something similar might be a better bet rather than having an individual article for every family member - we also have Carole Elizabeth Middleton for example, which could easily be redirected to a joint article. Before the wedding, there was quite a bit of research done on her extended family and background in parts of the media, which I'm sure could become vaguely interesting. Bob talk 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not notable beyond the wedding of his sister per WP:NOTINHERITED and also WP:ONEEVENT. Mo ainm~Talk 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A party organiser and a baker are somehow notable just because a sibling has married soneone who is notable. Neither Pippa nor James Middleton will ever appear in EB or ODNB but oh, WP will reduce itself to something of a farce. How more ludicrous can things get in WP.--Bill Reid | (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP has its own policy, and it is patently very different to that of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopedia Britannica. Middleton satisfies the general notability guidelines. That may mean that, in your view, the guidelines are wrongly drafted, but they are the guidelines of this project nonetheless.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find the WP:GNG is a guideline and not a policy, however WP:BLP1E is policy. Mtking (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one event - not inherited - no objection to a redirect to the most associated article or a minor merge if any detail is not already at the merge target or as User:Blofeld has commented above. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Middleton family, I strongly urge that these pages are redirected, they are not notable in their own right, other than being in her family. The family, yes it is notable as it married into the royal family, so an article on the family will suffice.BTW western fans here may have noticed the strong resemblance of James Middleton to Bill Carson of The Good the Bad and the Ugly LOL. He needs water, not deletion LOL! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt for a year, and if anybody remembers his name then and can create a decent article on him, then maybe we might have something worth keeping. I'd be surprised, but a lot can happen in a year. However, at the minute, the gentleman is only in the media eye because his sister just became the best-looking princess for half a century. He has a passing mention in several sources, but only by virtue of being Kate's sister or of his reading at her wedding. There may be some notability to his business ventures, at least sufficient to pass A7, but none of them are so notable that their directors are notable (like Tesco and Sir Terry Leahy, for example). He might be notable in 20 years when he's the uncle of an heir to the throne (but that relies on the assumption that the Duke and Duchess stay together and have children), in which case he would probably be a duke or earl of somewhere obscure. As it is though, he is not notable just because his sister has married into the Royal Family and his companies have had some, but very little, mainstream media coverage. Finally, I think it's telling that more then half the article is either quotes, almost cut-and-pasted from one of his siblings' articles, about a film he had nothing to do with or about his reading at the wedding. No, the poor state of an article is not, in itself, a reason to delete the article, but when there is so little to say about someone (because so little is written in reliable sources) that people have to pad it out with tangentially related rubbish, that shows the subject is clearly not notable in his own right. Alternatively, a protected redirect to Middleton family (where this article is duplicated in its entirety) would suffice, from which we can expand if he becomes notable in his own right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middleton family for now but the above comment about Salting for a year is absurd. The interest in Middleton family members may have started because of the royal connection but that does not preclude that interest kick-starting independent notability, as it has for Pippa Middleton and may well do yet here - we don't know yet. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a fan of family articles. It's not an uncommon surname and dispersed in the UK. It is likely that there have been a good number of notable Middletons and they may not be closely related, and opens the door to inclusion of all sorts of people with little relationship to the intended purpse of the article. It was the maiden name of Margaret Clitherow. I'd personally prefer a better title, and I agree with RichardOSmith that we should not make too many assumptions about how things will develop. --AJHingston (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Middleton family as proposed above (is that really the best title though?). This is textbook inheritance and cruft. My bet is that in one year there will be as little if not less to write about him (and reasons to do so), and I would personally choose to get his and other relatives' data into a section at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, but I don't think an article on her family is inappropriate, and it is a fair compromise between the participants of this AfD - frankieMR (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per St Anselm. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep James Middleton may not be direct nobility but he is a relative of our future king and therefore should be in wikipedia
Copied previous !vote by 82.25.135.244 from the talk page. Assuming "kwwp" means "keep" - frankieMR (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our? We have a President, thank you very much. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see 4 Telegraph stories (generally considered a reliable source) that substantially cover Mr. Middleton. If that isn't sufficient to satisfy the GNG, I don't know what is. Buddy431 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether he is notable, but is he independently notable. His notability has been established beyond doubt. The question is whether he is notable on his own, which means he deserves a separate article. If he is not independently notable from his sister, then his information would be merged into an article about her, or someone else independently notable. -- Avanu (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state in policy or guidelines that a topic must be 'independently' notable? I ask the question as I am unclear as to what is meant by 'independently' here. Middleton clearly satisfies the GNG according to my reading of it. I am genuinely confused as to whether I have missed something. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly inheritance and one event are concerned with that. What i understand for independent is that he oughta be regarded significantly for his actions instead of the direct effects or aftermaths of an event that is not his. The reading at the wedding, aside from being of only so much relevance, ends up depending (and is more appropriate) on the wedding. His work as a cake maker so far shows that he is a working professional, and even inclusion of that requires but brief sentences - frankieMR (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable for his business interests. Not known to the general world except for being someone's relation (and well-read Brit though I am, I didn't know he even existed until the other day). Hence no independent notability and therefore no need for a separate article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Middleton family (or Delete). There may be enough information about him in reliable sources to pass the notability guidelines, but I'm not convinced there's enough to justify a separate article; enough content is duplicated between the articles on the various Middletons that I think it would make more sense to cover them in a single article. The fact that this article has recently suffered repeated attempts to add BLP-violating content is another good reason for not keeping it separate. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as his only claim to fame is being the brother of the Duchess of Cambridge. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; pretty much by definition, someone who is only "notable" because they are $relation of $notable isn't. That his sole presence in reliable sources is in relation to a singularly notable event that isn't even centered around him is simply further proof of that point. — Coren (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reluctantly, but i think his business endeavors are notable DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to middleton or delete - I think that the notability of the whole family holds up as an article with sections about each, but that the individuals are a little light on notability and therefore subject to a lot of BLP nonsense. Let us not forget, these are real living people, not fictional minor nobles from the 19th century, whose gossip is only found in what are now reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – "the individuals are a little light on notability" seems to treat all five immediate family members as being equally notable or non-notable, but there are wide variations between them. Kate is unquestionably notable; two Afds this year have found Pippa to be notable, and the creation of an article on the family doesn't change that in either case. I tend to agree that Michael, Carole and James are "a little light on notability", but each is an individual and if notable at all then each merits an article. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has already been established. However, it is independent notability (not just notability) that determines whether a subject is worthy of their own article. -- Avanu (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "Notability has already been established" refers to. The notability of Kate and Pippa has been established, but this discussion is about James, and his is clearly in doubt. On "independent notability", that looks like the very point I was trying to make, that notability needs to be assessed separately for individuals and not collectively. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, James *CLEARLY* has established notability. You are mistaken. What I am referring to is found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria
"For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles."
Britney Spears has notability on her own, Jason Allen Alexander has notability by virtue of Britney's notability. See the difference? -- Avanu (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is what is needed to justify a stand-alone article, not a mention in another article. I don't agree that "Jason Allen Alexander has notability by virtue of Britney's notability". That's contradicted by the "Invalid criteria" section you linked above. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're actually reading what is written on that page, but "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); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B." James easily meets the "General Notability Guidline" WP:GNG, but maybe not the notability guidelines for people WP:BIO. So, the information here could easily be justified in the Kate article, but maybe not on its own. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key words here are surely unless significant coverage can be found on A. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep – Most of the sources relied on in the article are specific to James Middleton, so the question is whether he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "Significant coverage" means addressing the subject directly in detail, "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If he stands up to WP:N, it may be only just, but the coverage is fast multiplying. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not (yet) notable in any sense of the word, so merge anything worth mentioning into an article on the family. Or delete. But don't keep, unless Wikipedia is Debrettopedia or some such. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because so lots of peoples participated in discussion about this article. It's mean, that this person become every day more notable. For example, I was interested to read biography of this person and looked for it--Noel baran (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is there actually a book written with him as the sole subject? Right now, the only information we really have are from tabloids, because he's really only being covered for being the brother of someone notable, not because he himself is notable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. But I am strong supporter of this point of view, that in Wikipedia should be articles about all potential interesting subjects. Brother of eventual future queen - one of them --Noel baran (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the same argument a few others already said. We can't know at this point if he will get coverage for years to come, thus the AFD. If we knew for sure, this AFD would have no ground to stand on. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read that link? This isn't a case of NOTINHERITED. James is presumed notable because he is covered in multiple independent sources, not because he's the brother of someone else famous. It doesn't matter to us why he's covered in multiple independent sources, only that he is. Buddy431 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, clearly it is. Why did you not ask that of the other who put the same rationale?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter why he's covered because that relates to the assertion of notability. A person is not notable simply because a news article exists where they are mentioned. There are two possible arguments for his notability: either he's notable for being Kate Middleton's brother or he is notable for his baking company. The former is inherently not allowed because of WP:NOTINHERITED. As for the latter, the sources on the article don't indicate that he's especially notable for being a baker and it looks like this article was originally being used as a negative coatrack with a BLP-violating speculation about his sexual orientation. If the threshold for inclusion is having a few reliable sources use my name in an article, excuse me, I have to begin working on my own bio. Chillllls (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your coatrack suggestion is incorrect. The article's original state said nothing about his sexual orientation. And even if it had, that would not make it a coatrack because a coatrack means facts which are unrelated to the ostensible topic, not facts which are. You also don't understand NOTINHERITED. That just means that a relationship is a weak argument by itself for notability, in the absence of sources about the subject. Once you have sources which are directly about the subject, then the subject is notable per the WP:GNG and the relationship is then irrelevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should've not literally said it was a coatrack, but it started to get diverge from the subject when discussion began, in the article, about Twitter speculation on his sexuality when he spoke during the royal wedding. I know what a coatrack is and I shouldn't have used that term but I couldn't think of word to describe the situation where at one point about a third of the references on the article had to do with Twitter sexuality speculation. As for the notability inheritance, you are operating on the basis that he is notable because reliable sources discuss him. I agree that if you look at his notability at face value, yes he meets the guidelines at GNG. The point that I'm trying to raise, and I think others are too, is that all of these articles cited discuss him with "learn a little bit about the brother of Kate Middleton" as their premise. His notability for those articles is inherited from his sister and therefore the assertion of notability for Wikipedia also rests on his sister. Chillllls (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a very marginal keep, but I would expect additional RS info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Rharrington112 said! This is becoming ridiculous! James William Middleton is the brother-in-law of a future king and already a very public person! And there are many sources and newspapers writing about him for some time now (even independent and serious ones). That's damn notable! Again, I don't understand the obsession by some here to see this page being removed. Is it because of chronic shortage of wikipedia space? As I already wrote: really strange if you consider that less important subjects, like a Pokémon character, or all members of the Rodham family (of Hillary Clinton) have each their own pages, upto their insignificant cat and dog Socks and Buddy! And somehow James William Middleton is not notable enough? It's a mystery to me. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are entirely right about inconsistences in Wikipedia. The principle that notability is not inherited is frequently and sensibly breached. What we need to debate here is not whether James Middleton should be in Wikipedia but how best to do it. The choices are
1 Retain him in an article of his own. This should really depend on whether we think that there is going to be enough encyclopedic material to justify it.
2 Merge him and other family members into an article about the family. My concern about that is whether we can find a sensible and encyclopedic way of limiting it to the intended purpose. 'Middleton family' by itself isn't enough because it is a common name and may have arisen in different parts of the country so relationships cannot be assumed. It could end up a rag bag of all sorts of irrelevant material.
3 Put him under the article about his famous sister. I think that is wholly impracticable in the long run since the material about her will grow and grow and she and her relations are living separate and very different lives.
The guiding policies here the Five pillars of Wikipedia especially the last, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The right answer is what best suits the needs of users.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have good reasoning here. I think the "Middleton Family" seemed like a good concept, but as you point out, it probably can't be executed well. As we're seeing, a reasonable idea is to merge him with his sister's article, *but* since there is more and more information on him, its clear that a WP:SPLIT is the answer. So we end up back here. So despite a weakness in independent notability, it wins based on volume of information. -- Avanu (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems evident there isn't a SNOWBALL's chance at reaching a consensus. Can there possibly be anything left to say about James William Middleton that hasn't already been said in this colloquy? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A regular '"keep" close seems more likely than a "no concensus". The article has had over 40,000 hits in the last few days proving its interest to our readers, and I note the Foundation's Head of reader relations has unprotected it to allow further improvement by the resuce squad and others. A careful evaluation of the sources show extensive coverage for James in his own right, with some articles scarcely mentioning his sister. He had a highly successful business launch in the midst of the Great Recession, and won numerous awards before the wedding mania. So he's independently noteable and there is no clear policy based reason to delete this very interesting and popular article. No objection to an early snow keep if thats what youre suggesting? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the aforementioned Head of reader relations says on his user page "all edits that I make under this user name are made only in my individual, personal capacity as a volunteer, administrator, or otherwise regular member of the community." StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Middleton family (or Delete). - he wasn't notable last week so unless he is one event notable he sits better in a family article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His sister is notable, he read the lesson at a notable wedding, he makes cakes, he caused the 'shudders', he left uni, he lives in a flat with a sister and a cocker spaniel. That fails WP:GNG. Recreate when he is notable (and not merely talked about because of a flash in the pan from a single event, where the notability is entirely is due to his sister—see WP:NOTINHERITED). Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Johnuniq, you seem to be missing the point of WP:GNG. None of the facts you mention ("His sister is notable, he read the lesson at a notable wedding, he makes cakes, he caused the 'shudders', he left uni, he lives in a flat with a sister and a cocker spaniel") could ever make anyone either notable or non-notable. GNG is simply about whether there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There can be significant coverage of people who have no sisters, no dogs, no jobs, no degrees, no businesses – all such questions are red herrings, the issue is coverage and the degree of it. On that front, there is clearly a discussion to be had, I don't say the answer is clear. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • GNG is the grass cutter of notability - its almost true to say that in this modern media communication where almost any trivia is spammed to the world that nothing fails GNG - that is the reason we have articles about nobodies that nobody reads and that no-one protects from defamation or libel and as such getting over such a minimalistic hurdle should not be a reason to support any biography or topic. Off2riorob (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coverage shows that than an article on the event is needed. WP:1E and WP:BLP1E show that no article on this person is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Middleton family (or Delete). Not enough for a stand-alone, and will tend to repeat the family and upbringing material for the most part. Merge seems like the preferable compromise here, and we can look again after the wedding madness fades.--Scott Mac 09:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Middleton family or delete. This is just a case where BLP1E and being a relative of a notable person coincide. These don't make a person notable, and the present state of the article shows why. Hans Adler 10:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A documented article, and notable enough for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article on the Middleton family or Delete. He's just not independently notable. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's the brother of the girl who is going to be the Queen. Ergo he is notable. None of the royals has ever done anything except be a royal. This one may not be a Windsor, but he is now notable and people will want to follow his doings as evidenced by the ~10,000 users who have visited this page every day since it was created.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's getting profiled in major newspapers.[2][3] He's notable not because he did anything but simply because he's a celebrity. Kinda like Paris Hilton. Not because he did anything. He's simply famous for being famous. But he is famous.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the royals has ever done anything except be a royal. Well, they tend to do horsey things. Those aside, "Snowdon" (as he calls himself), or "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon" (as "nobility"-addled Wikipedia calls him), is a photographer of some note. As a photographer, he gets an entire page within the recent Photographers A–Z (Taschen). That's largely on the strength of his achievements before becoming a royal; but even after joining this amply financed family he kept on working for (unsubsidized) publication. And please, don't knock Paris Hilton, an artiste of staggering accomplishments. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Middleton family article. This individual is not independently notable. Neutron (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Middleton family. That he might become notable in his own right sometime in the future is a discussion for the future. Right now he isn't. If he does manage to receive independent notability then the article can and probably will be recreated at that time. You or I or anybody may gain enough notability to have our own article. That this man by virtue of his connections is much more likely than average to gain such notability is irrelevant. He's not yet so shouldn't have an article yet. Rubiscous (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, if you must. There are a thousand fine reasons above, and I'm just adding my voice to the choir. Notability is not inherited, BLP1E, etc. etc. Royals aren't notable for being royals, they're notable because people keep writing about royals. Once people keep writing about this gentleman, he'll make for a fine topic I'm sure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at most, merge into Middleton family. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLP1E, etc. Taken on his own, he is clearly not notable. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Our notability guideline for people, WP:PEOPLE (which trumps the WP:NOTINHERITED essay to the extent there is any conflict) states "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)." There is plenty of significant coverage on A, in this case James Middleton. Hence, he passes the notability guidelines. Even if he did not, the guideline would suggest merging and/or redirecting, not deleting. Rlendog (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough one. I am internally debating whether being a good cakemaker is notability enough. He did get commissioned by a famous magazine to make a blackjack's worth of cakes, and HELLO magazine is notable, and they covered him, so it's leaning to a borderline keep. In fact, for that reason, I will say keep. CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_William_Middleton&oldid=1150995154"