Deletion of James William Middleton

Comment: 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.  &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Johnuniq, you seem to be missing the point of . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:DISRUPT)

Comment: Easily passes  however isn't this a moot point as someone has already created Middleton family and we now have duplication
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)