Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark: Certainly the 'acting career' does not establish notability.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I note that most of the keep votes in the last nomination thought that being a member of a 'royal family' conferred notability.  It does not.  Neither does the fact that some publications pander to the vanities of these caterpillars on the commonwealth.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The latest acting role isn't even a named character, hardly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER .  Some of the Keep arguments in the previous AfD were erroneous.  "he is currently 3rd in line to be Pretender to the Greek throne" fails to recognize that the Greek throne is defunct and has been for quite some time.  Another argument was "even the divorced wives of the lowliest of Britain’s peers qualify for a page" which is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: I agree.  Being on pages of Tatler and Harper's Bazaar doesn't mean he is notable or else we would have to make everyone who is ever mentioned in those pages a wikipedia as well.  He also doesn't have a notable acting career.  Unfriendnow ( talk ) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Royalty and nobility ,  and Greece .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions .  Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The item that would establish notability would be his acting career. There are only three films which I could find him in (the ones listed on his article). In the first, as the article says, he only made "guest appearances". The second film was not notable in its own right. In the third film, he did not have a significant role. Thus the criteria of WP:ENT are not satisfied, and there is nothing else that would establish notability. Gödel2200 ( talk ) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . The nominator did not do a WP:BEFORE check especially step D before nominating this article for deletion. Also, any argument that attacks the viewpoints presented in reliable sources or expresses dislike of the article subject is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has no weight meaning such an argument will be discarded due to having no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The article subject has received significant coverage from: South China Morning Post , La Vanguardia , ABC , El Confidencial , Vanity Fair , Paris Match , El Español , El Economista , Diario de Sevilla , El Nacional (Catalonia) , Gala , Harper's Bazaar , Tatler , ¡Hola! , Mujer Hoy , Revista Clase , news.com.au -- StellarHalo ( talk ) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that I find royalty egregious is irrelevant; I am not nominating a serving royal who has attracted coverage from any but the gossiperati for deletion.  I do not think that you know what the word 'significant'  means.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that you have an axe to grind against a group of people to the point where you hate reliable sources just for covering them mean you should not be editing articles in this topic.  From WP:GNG , " significant coverage " addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  All the rs I provided above address the article subject directly and in detail.  Not only that, per WP:BASIC , multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability .  The only meaning of "significant" that is relevant here is the one used by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you seem to refuse to engage with.  Also, you clearly do not know what a gossip magazine is.  StellarHalo ( talk ) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG .  Subject has received significant press coverage, regardless of why that coverage was written.  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] significant? you are having a laugh. TheLongTone ( talk ) 12:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I am not. StellarHalo provided an adequate display of such coverage in the above conversation. Your sarcasm doesn't do anything for your case, so I'm not sure why you chose to react in that manner. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and I strongly suggest the nominator withdraw.  Ignoring the "meet the Greek royals" and similar sources (because notability is not inherited ), there are many, many in-depth articles about the subject by independent, reliable sources.  StellarHalo lists quite a few and there are lots more.  Easily meets WP:BASIC .  C F A 💬 00:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This individual is truly insignificant and the fact that some empty-headed people pay him and similar people attention is neither here nor there.  And as for withdrawing my nomination.... forget it.  The man is not notable in any real sense.  As per the article, all he has done is be born.  See WP:NOTINHERTED .  I have a better claim to be notable.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fascinating.  So you've been written about in Tatler , China Morning Post , Harper's Bazaar , Hola!  , Vanity Fair , etc?  -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 13:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : meets WP:GNG as per the articles cited in the article and the additional articles found by StellarHalo .  WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply if reliable sources have written about the individual, even if those reliable sources' interest is because of the article subject's family connections.  Bondegezou ( talk ) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : For the reasons listed above.  The candidacy appears to be supported only by the candidate's personal opinions and dislikes rather than a solid source-based argument.  Sira Aspera ( talk ) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Νo worthy mention.  The individual is in the public eye simply because he is a member of a former royal family.  D.S. Lioness ( talk ) 17:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ D.S. Lioness : The subject is covered in many in-depth independent, reliable sources about him.  He meets GNG/ WP:BASIC .  It doesn't matter if the coverage is only written because he is a member of a royal family.  WP:NOTINHERIT means notability is not presumed just because they are related to someone notable.  If they meet GNG, it doesn't matter.  C F A 💬 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see in-depth cover about him.  All sources are about his lifestyle, nothing else.  D.S. Lioness ( talk ) 18:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More than half of the sources I posted above are about the subject starting his acting career.  Also, what makes you think coverage of a subject's lifestyle is not in-depth?  Again, your and other delete votes here are based on personal standards of notability instead of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  This means that your arguments have no weight and will be discarded.  As has already been said, it does not matter why multiple reliable sources choose to cover a particular subject.  As long as the subject has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, then he is notable enough for a separate article as far as Wikipedia is concerned per WP:GNG .  StellarHalo ( talk ) 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the person is at beginning of his career, he does not has done something big, he may be notable in future, but he is not now as of yet.  fails Master rollo ( talk ) 17:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Master rollo : Do you have a policy that supports why he is not notable?  Not "doing something big" is not a helpful reason.  C F A 💬 17:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] every user has their own opinion.  you don't have to ask for explanations from everyone.  D.S. Lioness ( talk ) 18:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, you can post your vote, but it is likely to be taken with a grain of salt by the closer if you don't cite a policy or explain your rationale.  C F A 💬 21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] see, he has acted in 3 flims only, he is a member of the former royal family that ruled greece , he fails per WP:ENTERTAINER .  we need more than sources to prove his notability maybe an prominent award or some worthy contributions in some field can justify his notability, if we are going in that case there are many royal members around the world that has significant coveragebut still are not worthy to have a page.  Master rollo ( talk ) 18:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone can fail a subject-specific notability guideline ( WP:ENTERTAINER ) and still meet the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.  Generally, with some exceptions, if anyone has had significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  C F A 💬 21:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom.  Michalis1994 ( talk ) 20:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.  Established notability through acting work and title.  Several in-depth sources are good as well.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Want to make it clear that sources for this individual are significant and has been ongoing for years back.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:41, 17 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus