Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt, and Christian Mowatt

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. Not much doubt about the two children, whose only claim to fame is being (way down) in the line of succession to the British throne. A bit more doubt for the mother, who is not only one higher in the line of succession :), but also made some gossip headlines in her day, and has been apparently the "rear of the year" in 1989. All in all, not enough to warrant an article (following the spirit of

Fram 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Christian Mowatt

[Sorry the last set of links won't work. And the template immediately above seems tamper/delete-resistant. -- Hoary 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Christian Mowatt

: nn.

Marina Ogilvy is "a composer for film and television"; no compositions, film titles, or television programs are listed, and no references are given. She's related to people.

Zenouska Mowatt "insists on leading the life of a normal young lady of her age" (17). She's related to people: her mum is Marina and her dad is Paul Mowatt

(whose AfD appears to have been frozen by some "agent"). And that's all, it seems.

Christian Mowatt

If I understand correctly, if the British queen and thirty-six other people in line for the throne were all blown away -- by the combination of (a) bird flu and (b) a 1990s-Hollywood style asteroid? -- then Marina, Zenouska or Christian would become queen or king; but unless/until such a combination of disasters were to happen (and may god save our gracious queen!), their royal connections mean squat. And if it did happen, then my guess is that even readers of the Daily Mail would be too concerned about other matters to worry about whom Mr Brown's successor would be having regular chats with over cups of tea.

Wikipedia is not a collection of genealogical entries and instead bios must be about people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Zenouska and Christian appear to have none whatever. Marina's is that she was five months' pregnant when she got married. Crikey, if this were 1927, we'd all be flabbergasted, I'm sure; but in 1990 we weren't, even though one or two desperate gossip columnists might have managed to wring a "story" out of it. -- Hoary 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: I don't think Christian and Zenouska are particularly encyclopaedic. The only reason I'd give for keeping them is this:

Preceded by Christian Mowatt	Line of succession to the British Throne	Succeeded by The Earl of Harewood

The Earl of Harewood is notable. And Princess Alexandra is notable. And I don't like breaking chains. I'm not sure if I'm being a bit silly here. ElinorD (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Zenouska is high in the order of succession. She also is taking the controversial stand of distancing herself from the Royal Family. Keep her (and of course the others) availible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.196 (talk) 20:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Harewood is indeed notable. He has achieved a lot, for which he fully deserves an article. If any of these Mowatts were shown to have achieved one tenth as much, I wouldn't have sent their articles to AfD. ¶ After number ten or so -- oh, all right, even twenty (though I'd say five) -- this "chain" is mere royaltycruft. -- Hoary 13:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% committed to my position (note that I haven't said "keep"). I realise that Princess Alexandra is 33rd in line to the throne, and the Earl of Harewood is 40th, so I'm not vehemently insisting on keeping a chain unbroken because of six borderline-notable people. But I would feel that it would be a pity to get rid of a one-paragraph article about a not-very notable person who was fourteenth on a particular list, if 1&ndash13 and 15–50 were all notable with proper articles, and if each of those articles had one of those boxes at the bottom! I'm not claiming that I'm right or that I'm logical. It's just how I'd feel. This may be different because there are six borderline-notable links in the chain. They're not completely non-notable, and because they're borderline (in my view) and because I don't like breaking the chain, I'm slightly inclining towards a weak keep. ElinorD (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my reason is idiotic (which perhaps it is), I'm sure the closing admin will discount it. And that won't break my heart. :-) ElinorD (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to parents' articles and redirect. These names are valid enough as search terms and the redirect won't break the chain in the succession box (or can be modified so that it does not). --Dhartung | Talk 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in sections in the parents' articles. Add the info box to the section and use a section link inside the box. - Richfife 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
m & rd to
Line of succession to the British throne. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

* Redirect to

~~Line of succession to the British throne. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Struck double !vote to assist closing admin. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SFGiants, clearly the relationship of any of these to their parents is greater than to the line of succession. That is, there is little point to expanding their entries in the latter, and good reason to do it in the former. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

TerriersFan 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

TerriersFan, what complexity is there that requires more thoroughness? How or where is thoroughness lacking? Hoary 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Line of succession to the British throne. That's their only claim to notability, and quite frankly the ex-husband/father isn't the most notable person either. If they were closer to the top, then I might advocate keeping them, but I doubt all 30-some-odd relatives ahead of them are all going to kick off or refuse the crown in the event a successor is needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- (1) As soon as you point out their sole putative claim to notability, you seem to agree with me that it's no claim to notability at all. But
  Line of succession to the British throne does have a certain humor value, presumably unintended. (Long live Queen Ethel!) (2) Perhaps it's about time some crowbar from on high freed ex-hubby/dad's AfD from its "temporary" state. -- Hoary 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Red link the lads and/or lasses Ah, I've changed my mind, due to events unforeseen at the time, and now agree with Hoary that these should be deleted. If Hoary is not voting for delete, he should follow my lead, and he knows why, as the articles should be red linked to oblivion. KP Botany 06:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having nominated the three for deletion, I'd thought that my delete vote would be obvious, but KP Botany suggests otherwise immediately above. (Perhaps this comment will itself now be deleted, because one's not supposed to vote twice -- but then AfD isn't a vote, right?) Though I wouldn't much mind if they were redirected somewhere instead. -- Hoary 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd start the AfD on the deletion of your comments right away, except that I think it's beneath me, at least the one I'd have to AfD. Seriously, it's a bit clearly if you explicitly state your preferences in bold. KP Botany 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced biographies of non-notable living people. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as they are Royalty, even if you
are a complete republican, the British Royal family is per se notable. Marina Oglivy has always been fodder for the tabloid press on Fleet Street, and has a bit part in Kitty Kelly's book on The Windsors, so there must be 100's of soucres for her. Merge her childrens' articles into hers. Bearian 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- How are they royalty? They appear to be related to royalty, but then I believe I'm related to Ivor Novello and for all I know you may be related to Keith Richards or Einstein. That mum has always been fodder for the redtops suggests the House of Hilton rather than that of Windsor, but anyway let's see some specifics; hundreds of sources (for what events or non-events?) would indeed be amusing, but just two or three would suffice for the short term. -- Hoary 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are high enough in the order of succession to be of wide interest, whether that is right or not. People will want to look them up, and appropriately sourced articles can be written about them, so we should cover them. Brandon97 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence for the assertion that they're of wide interest? (I for one hadn't heard of them till I saw the links from Paul Mowatt, and I hadn't heard of him till I noticed a link to his article.) -- Hoary 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Post the appropriate sources, 2 or 3 qualified references for each, and I will personally write the article and sink Hoary's ship, Brandon. KP Botany 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whereupon I shall likely drown. Your comment thus constitutes a death threat. I waive my right to have you blocked for your verbal terrorism, but I do wonder who's next in the line of succession to me. ("The Hoary is dead. Long live the Hoary!") -- Hoary 00:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listmakers and boxmakers want a separate article for every item on their list. This is the mark of directory-thinking, a step below dictionary-thinking. The question of whether all royalty is encyclopedia-worthy aside, the idea that these folks are royalty is... unspeakably benighted. --Wetman 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember, some years ago, that Marina did hit the headlines in the British press by sitting on a throne dressed as a punk rocker with a fake crown and some corgis saying how her family did not understand her and disaproved of her husband. Without the fake crown that is pretty normal stuff for any young girl getting married. (most family's have to endure at least one stroppy teenager) Howerever, she and her offspring could be mentioned very briefly in her mother's page. Her divorced husband was nothing before the mariage and he has returned to obscurity - no need for him other than a name to explain the offspring's surname.
Giano 10:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect It seems pretty clear that none of Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt and Christian Mowatt are notable outside of the line of succession and that substantive articles cannot be written about them at this time. I would support merging the contents (or some of the contents) and redirecting to Princess Alexandra and Angus Ogilvy. --Malcolmxl5 20:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these thinnest of watery broth bios. These people are not notable. If calamity strikes, and those ahead of them in line to the throne are snuffed out, I promise to devote all my energies to (co)writing their WP articles... until then, I can't imagine why anyone should bother. Pinkville 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, very obscure.. seems to me that these articles have just been made for the sake of making an article, notability be damned.
DeusExMachina 23:02, 29 August 2007 (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.