Deletion of James William Middleton

Comment: or at most, '''merge''' into Middleton family. , , etc. Taken on his own, he is clearly not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: the brief blast of royal wedding mania is pushing us into ever further reaches of  & ever more tenuous connection to this . (And WP:PRESERVE is ''not'' the sum of diting policy, is ''not'' to be read in isolation from other relevant policies, and such a balanced reading is ''not'' "disruptive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BLP1E||WP:E)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: 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 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/3118179/The-posh-preneurs-who-mean-business.html 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  and  apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:1E)

Comment: Some people seem to misunderstand , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: notability is not inherited and this is a clear case of  based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Ward
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Our notability guideline for people,  (which trumps the  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PEOPLE||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: agree with case of   —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: 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 , it may be only just, but the coverage is fast multiplying
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is a textbook case of . Was he notable before his sister got married? No. Why is he notable now? Because his sister got married to someone important. That's flat-out "inherited" notability. He has not done anything "significant and notable in his own right", as the essay says
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: per . Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you ignore the sources that cover him on the basis of his relationship to Catherine, the remaining sources do not indicate notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Clear case of  - Yes he has had significant media coverage but all surrounding a single event. His business activities are not notable by WP standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: 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 . 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: This person is not notable beyond the wedding of his sister per  and also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: This should be a very simple case of  and  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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BLP1E||WP:AFD)