Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukás of Bulgaria

Lukás of Bulgaria

nn child "prince" of a monarchy abolished 60 years ago Gene Nygaard 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Gene Nygaard 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These royal families are in themselves notable. In the case of Bulgaria, all the more so since Simeon returned to the country to be prime minister. Unless it is being alleged that Lukas is a hoax, this is a clear keep. Bucketsofg 09:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So do an article about the "notable family"—that doesn't make everybody with a remote connection to it notable. It's pretty ridiculous to require published college professors and scientists to stand out from the crowd, yet some kid who never did anything who calls himself a "prince" because some distant ancestor was a tsar, when his father (and maybe even grandfather or further back) came after the monarchy was abolished. Gene Nygaard 09:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was born decades after the monarchy he's "prince" of was abolished. --Icarus 09:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Kubrat of Panagiurishte, Mirko of Bulgaria, and Tirso of Bulgaria for same reason. --Icarus 10:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll add a vote (already nominated and voted for Lukás) to delete those three fake "princes" or "princesses" of this make-believe monarchy for the same reason. Gene Nygaard 10:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless we're going to delete all articles on all former royals. Jcuk 10:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who wasn't born until half a century after the monarchy ended is not a "former royal". 66.97.254.212 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Gene Nygaard, not logged in.[reply]

ok then members of formerly royal families, if you must be pedantic. Jcuk 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or preferably Merge into one article about the family. Former royals would mostly be notable but the second son of the third son is probably stretching it a bit far. Davewild 12:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretenders to thrones/titles at least have verifiable claims to the titles they aspire, as opposed to the self-generated (really vanity) sources for the micronations Wikipedia treats as notable. Certainly more notable than all those those hereditary British peers who have listings, notable mostly for inbreeding and the human rights abuses their 16th century ancestors committed. Monicasdude 15:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would we consider all "citizens" of a micronation, including infants, to thus be notable if we have an article about that micronation? I certainly hope not. Gene Nygaard 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]