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 to purge edit history, and then redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. DS (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Delete. Grounds: WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Also listed at Requests for arbitration. Suggest his pretentious coat of arms also be deleted. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Grounds: WP:NN policies are fairly specific that if an individual is only notable for a single event, the focus should be on that event (e.g., the claim, itself) rather than on an otherwise un-notable person. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. And consistent with the notability guidelines, from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which I believe is the case with this article. In summary, WP policies are to cover the event, not the person. So, given all of this, I fail to see how Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent (and relatively minor) coverage of it. I don't think a prudent person would believe that an individual who claims to be a descendant of ancient royalty (an, as yet, unverified and unrecognized claim) "constitutes a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." As can be seen from the compendium of press coverage at the article's talk page, there is really not that much press about this, and certainly not enough to date to be part of any enduring historical record. I support deletion unless I am persuaded that Howe has achieved notability in another way. Newguy34 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3]. The depth of coverage here is substantial--Hu12 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, and watch to make sure that doesn't get filled with the amount of detail in this article. I don't think his wishes are at all relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NN. no particular opinion about the redirect other than it might help prevent re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This BLP was created by admin Hu12 on December 18, 2007. I'll let him comment himself, but obviously including this BLP falls well within Wikipedia standards, see WP:BIO. Noting WP:BIO, the coverage of his claim meets the basic criteria and has had substantial coverage far beyond anything that could remotely be considered trivial. He has been the target of some culturally biased news coverage in the Isle of Man and England, (United States news coverage has been less bias), but citing WP:BIO just because the subject may lack popularity it does not make him less notable and is not a reason to delete the BLP. If it were or if being notable for just his status as a pretender is grounds for deleting this bio then we will have our hands full with all the other biographies of pretenders, many of whom haven't had nearly the same amount of news coverage.--Lazydown (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) This user has been banned as a sockpuppet of David Howe. :Late Addition Relating to pretenders in general, I notice that two BLP's for French pretenders list between them a total of FIVE sources combined. I added this because one of the other arguments, further down the page, for deleting this BLP has been not enough third-party sources, of which I think there are at least 15 currently available since October 2007.--Lazydown (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :Attention needed One or more editors discussing this issue are party to a dispute with the subject of this BLP currently being reviewed by the arbitration committee. They have had a substantial history of editing this BLP. They are now giving their recommendation only after having been named in the dispute.--Lazydown (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, and, what's your point? You, too, have had a substantial history of editing the same BLP. That is precisely why we have been asked to comment on this AfD. That the subject of the article has requested the arbitration (which has not yet been accepted by ArbCom) to which we are parties has no impact on this proposed action. Contrary to your assertion, I asked for this AfD before the RfAR, as is evidenced by the time stamps on the article's talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, there are lots of "references", the kind that would be great for a scrapbook, but this is an encyclopedia, not a press clippings service. WP:BLP1E for sure, and the 1E is not worthy of inclusion as shown by the impressive and convincing WP:OR that went into disproving the claims. Had anyone card, even just a little, some newspaper or magazine would have done a solid rebuttal piece that could be quoted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Rebuttal If a person is crowned a King, albeit in exile, regardless of who agrees or disagrees, and the event is given substantial news coverage as in this case, you are saying that the event isn't significant for inclusion as a stand alone BLP, interesting. Also that Original Research project was blacklisted by Wikipedia for several reasons, none of which cited it's "impressiveness." Not everyone is convinced. It also, humorously I might add, says Howe hasn't proved his pedigree but then proceeds to prove it. It also fails to debate the merits for which his claim is based and instead argues a red-herring for which I can find no reference that the subject has ever asserted.--Lazydown (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if that person "self-crowned" himself king. This is a red herring. He is not in exile because he has never been to the Isle of Mann, and has never been exiled. The event has not been given "substantial" news coverage, as evidenced by the compendium of a few news reports on the article's talk page. Much of the coverage has been reprint from the same source. Newguy34 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Wrong! Unless he is an archbishop he didn't crown himself. There is at least one picture on one of the many independent news sources that shows the crowning. And, didn't you fight to have the latest, as of Monday, news piece from the Manx Examiner, that suggests that Howe has as much right to the throne as Queen Elizabeth does as the Lord of Mann, deleted out? I think that makes 5 or 6 articles about him just in the Isle of Man press since October; not to mention the 8 or 9 other pieces done on him outside of the Island. Just because you haven't included all the news sources doesn't mean there aren't plenty out there.--Lazydown (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's semantics. If I hire an agent, the agent's actions are the same as mine. He had himself "crowned" (if the term suits you better) to a throne not recognized by either the Lord of Mann or by the Manx government. And, there is no way of knowing if an archbishop actually placed the crown on his head, as the photo you cite merely shows a robed arm, and he refuses to name this archbishop. And, I sought to remove an opinion column, not a "news piece", that you had selectively edited for inclusion in the article. Newguy34 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the "coronation" was a private affair only Howe, or a close associate, could have supplied the media with the picture. The archbishop is, as yet, unidentified.

Having contacted the author of the Manx Examiner article and he said the articles' main point was that he feels monarchy in itself is a bizarre concept and unsuitable to the modern world. Not exactly an endorsement of Howe's claims especially as he did apply the word delusion to it. --Heraldic 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NN. Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender as next option. Apart from the "claim" subject is not of note. Much of the press coverage seems to be a rehash of the original story. --Heraldic (talk) Heraldic 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per extensive media coverage, demonstrated by long list of references. Meets WP:BIO. Walton^One 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Let the editors discuss and determine if a merge would work. this source seems to get him into WP:N [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - opinions on legitimacy and whatnot aside, he seems to have plenty of media attention to meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender for reasons cited above by same opinions. Bio fails WP:BLP1E. The quantity of news coverage is not relevant if it's all surrounding one event. Initial publicity (hometown paper) clearly originated with subject & the rest is reaction. Interesting that one editor seems to be trying to argue the claim here in Afd. 68.166.235.203 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)— 68.166.235.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agree. This page is for discussion of the merits of the AfD request, not the merits of the BLP or underlying claim. Let's all try to keep it to that? Newguy34 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Disagree, as people continue to debate the claim and make false statements on this page as they are still doing. The anonymous IP user above made a false statement saying the initial publicity started with Howe's hometown newspaper. That is false. The Isle of Man newspapers began reporting the story back in October 2007. There were at least five combined radio and newspaper stories on Howe's claim prior to his hometown newspaper's story picking it up in December 2007.--Lazydown (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazydown, you have a point (!). I now see that the 10/3/2006 Frederick newspaper article does not mention the Manx claim at all. The first dated item on the talk page is one from the Isle of Man, 10/17/2007: so a 'hometown' paper for the area which is the subject of the claim, not the claimant's hometown. But the whole article still fails WP:BLP1E. [NB I revised this paragraph.] 68.166.235.203 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article simply doesn't have enough 'real' references besides the website of the 'King' and interviews/press coverage done (note: interviews and press are not bias-free). Certain references used was to his advantage in promoting himself the right to 'throne'. The article was also heavily involved in edit wars and really don't have much notability.--Cahk (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Rebuttal The article has had substantial 'real' references but part of the edit war you referenced included certain editors deleting the references and disputing them because they were not 'critical enough' to fit their purposes. The major issue with the BLP continues to be the pursuit of certain editors promoting things to discredit the subject and not to provide a NPOV.--Lazydown (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazydown, seriously please cease discussing the merits of the article here. Take it to the article's talk page and we can discuss to your heart's content. I disagree with those who have voted "keep", but have not took them to task here. Also, please cease from accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of somehow violating NPOV. It's really getting tired. Many of us believe that you have been promoting Howe's claims too strongly in your edits, and in the process also violating NPOV. Can we have a truce on this? Will you please show good faith? Newguy34 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with comments above in just mentioning Howe to the King of Mann page instead of creating a full fledge wiki page dedicated on him. Not only does he not have enough notability, edit wars will continue to go if this page exist and some information available is simply not reliable (ie. His Coat of Arms is simply his creation so what standing does it has in relation to being King of Mann? , did third party genealogist investigated his claim? and the fact he never even set foot in the Isle makes this article simply an advertisment for his claim to 'throne') In addition, the alleged 'coronation' was so secret and we can't even tell if the 'archbishop' was simply one that is made up by another person. --Cahk (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to an entry in the King of Mann article of appropriate weight. Newguy34 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has asked for arbitration. If it is granted I suspect it will lead to an end to the edit wars. Simply moving it to another page will not stop that because the same users that the subject has complained about will continue to edit to their POV. For instance, on the King of Mann article, user Wjhonson (a party to Howe's request for arbitration) on January 8 removed the following from the pretender section, Currently there is no definitive proof that he either is or is not the King, however his. That is a factual statement that he removed because it left the possibility open that he could have a legitimate claim. It was a NPOV statement and there was no need to remove it. These types of edits will continue no matter where you include Howe's claim. I propose we keep his bio and it be given permanent protection with edit request being sent to admins. It will be the only way to ensure NPOV and WP:BLP concerns.

:::::::By the way, if he wasn't notable enough for his own BLP I seriously doubt there would be this much attention by media and several editors using the page as a soapbox denouncing him.--Lazydown (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. The article is almost entirely about Howe's claim rather than Howe himself, and I would contend that is has had sufficient press coverage (across three countries) to be sufficiently notable. However, I have concerns about how the claim can be sufficiently and accurately described in the King of Mann article without unbalancing it. Failing a merger, I would say a rather weak Keep, at least to see if there are more developments. Mauls (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree to that, as I suggested days ago here. Newguy34 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. I don't think he is notable enough to have an article as he has only one real claim to notability which could be dealt with succinctly on King of Mann without all the extraneous details about his business plans for selling titles etc.. Dabbler (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment I'm sorry but what exactly is HRH Prince Charles of Wales notable for? Oh, right he's the heir to Queen Elizabeth II, and she is notable for? This whole debate is very politically charged and the fact is that all Kings and Queens are notable for really one thing and everything else that follows is as a result of their station.--Lazydown (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment But, Howe is not a king or a queen except in his own mind. His throne has not been recognized by ANYONE with an authority to do so. Newguy34 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Addition to your addition I wasn't aware there was a governing body for claimants to a throne. Who exactly has authority over a King? ;-) He is a pretender who has received four bucket loads of attention in the media in just a few months. Far more than a mere fantasist would ever get; which is what you and few other editors maintain. He's clearly not a fantasist as there are people who take his claim seriously, some more than others. So, again, a Pretender to a throne, like any King or Queen is notable for one thing, everything else is a result of that.--Lazydown (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then those have been pretty small buckets. Real monarchs have the legitimacy of allegiance from those over which they rule and the recognition of the validity of their claims. Howe has neither. You agree, then, that he is notable for only a single event? How, then, does he warrant a BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Yes, Prince Charles is notable for one thing and everything that followed was a result of that one thing.--Lazydown (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the title King of Mann, there is a governing body: the monarch of the United Kingdom. --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:WAX. Lazydown - that is not a valid argument. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment You're right, it is hard to agree to Keep a BLP about Prince Charles because, like Howe, he is notable for one thing and because Howe also has a BLP. So, I guess I agree, we should delete Prince Charles' BLP. I'll phone Buck House and let them no of our decision.--Lazydown (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Carbon beat me to it, but just because HRH The Prince of Wales has a BLP, doesn't mean he should. We are considering this AfD, based solely on its merits and adherance to WP policies. Just as it is irrelevant how many references Anna Nichole Smith's BLP has to Ancestry.com; it still is not a WP:RS Newguy34 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that HRH's (Charles, that is) BLP has detailed information about his employment, place of residence, spouses (both of them) and children. Newguy34 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::It does. I suspect though that Howe doesn't quite have the same resources to muster for his protection as does Chuck. Any way, Great then Newguy34 we agree, finally. As soon as we are done here we can move forward working together on deleting the BLPs for the entire British Royal Family and all other Royal and Pretender BLPs because they too are notable for only one thing. Or, perhaps we give page protection to King David's page like Prince Charles' page and we can prevent the politically charged and culturally biased edits from continuing. No matter, because I suspect it is headed that way regardless.--Lazydown (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, HRH's BLP is semi-protected. I'd be happy to afford the same to any BLP. I'll assume that your comments are sarcasm, so I'll try to get us back to the point at hand regarding this AfD. If I agreed to a BLP (which is highly unlikely, but I have always suggested that I could be pursuaded), it would have to be balanced and from a NPOV. Attempts to highjack this BLP by characterizing his claim in the most positive light are disturbing to me as a proud Wikipedian. His claim is littered with inconsistencies and matters that don't pass the "smell test". Howe's violent reaction, alone, should give any prudent person pause. Frankly (and with respect) your reaction also gives me pause about the validity of the claim. If something is true, it is always true and no one need proclaim it so forcefully. Newguy34 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. It's the only thing that David Howe is really notable for. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender per previous arguments. Claim is unsubstantiated by any authoritative source and therefore remains, pro tem, nothing more than that, so it should be regarded as precisely that. Whilst historical claims to nobility are nothing new, as here, for example, until a decisive judgement is achieved, it should remain as nothing more than a mere bagatelle, serving only as an example of the self-delusion practised by some people. After all, it has always been open for the claimant to seek a declaration in the High Court of England and Wales that he is the rightful heir to this title, and I note that this has not been done. An advertisement in the London Gazette is not good enough to establish title. As for the side-issues presented here, they are amusing in their naivety, but ultimately insubstantial. Enough joke pages, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:What Authority? Nice, who has the authority to establish such a claim? Who sits higher than a King? No one seems to have that answer. I'm also troubled by your imposter heir example and accusing the subject of being delusional. Your insistence on taking the claim to the High Court of England and Wales seems a bit off as well. Are you a solicitor or a barrister, because if not, I don't think you should be dispensing legal advice with out a license.--Lazydown (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll humour you, but only for the purposes of comedy, despite my seriously made objections: 1. The battlefield or, since 1649, when the Divine Right of Kings was forever consigned to the dustbin of history. 2. These days, as far as the UK is concerned, the democratically elected de facto government of the United Kingdom. 3. I suspect you are rather more embarrassed than troubled by my "impostor heir" example, which only illustrates the fact that there is nothing new in this type of self-aggrandising nonsense. 4. As to whether the subject is delusional, if he wants to believe something which cannot be proved even on a balance of probabilities, that is his affair; but if he wants to be taken seriously, which I sense to be the whole point of this article, that is not good enough, which brings me to 5. the High Court is amply qualified to issue a decision in matters such as this, and has done so in previous cases, for example the Ampthill Peerage Case 1977 AC 547. 6. FWIW, although I don't make a point of it here, I am a barrister and have been so since 1978, and although now semi-retired, I do not need a license to practice. Even so, perhaps I'm more used to dealing with nonsense than your average punter, so I hope you'll forgive my cynicism. Or experience, whichever you judge to be more important. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my crassness then. I just find the prospect of the High Court of England deciding in any pretender's favour against the Queen to be very unlikely, no matter how solid the foundation of the claim might be. So, the suggestion seems a bit preposterous and entirely comedic on it's own. Not to mention the fact that the High Court of England had no issue with the 1765 Act of Revestment which yanked any soverignty the Isle of Man may have had away and brought it under the British Crown. Yes, the High Court of England doesn't quite have a track record of impartiality in matters of the State.--Lazydown (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's unlikely, but it's all we've got. The solidity of the claim remains to be decided, but at least you appreciate the comedic potential. Politics occasionally throws up bizarre situations, but in my view an encyclopedia is not the place to resolve them. We reflect here what is, not what should be, and that is why this article, entertaining though it is, does not belong here in its current form. If circumstances change, certainly, I'm prepared to change my mind; I might even get a better one! --Rodhullandemu

(Talk) 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's settled then. We march on Buck House tonight and demand a recount. :-)--Lazydown (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is specious because it wasn't "yanked" away. It was sold. You should re-read the history of what exactly happened, you seem a bit light on it. Wjhonson (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, per Carnildo, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Our article seems to take his claim very seriously but news coverage is limited. The biggest media mention so far seems to be the article in the Telegraph from 20 December. That article quoted a few local residents of the Isle of Man. The Frederick News-Post, for which two references are offered, is the newspaper of a city of 58,000 people. The Isle of Man Examiner continues to carry articles, most recently on January 7, but they seem to regard this as an amusing human-interest story, not a constitutional crisis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Media Coverage Dismissed? Of course there is also the meager matter of the piece about him on NBC 4 Washington, DC, a major market news station whose broadcast is seen by at least a million. Oh, and that little piece on Fox News Studio B that has several million viewers. How do you miss those when you had to pick out the articles you mentioned?--Lazydown (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the NBC 4 piece and the Fox News piece were also amusing human-interest stories. Hell, Shepard Smith was giggling half way through the interview. Newguy34 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and then he closed by saying Howe was a "Very Royal Man". I didn't here or see him laughing there. See, selective, non NPOV edits. But, I'm sure that the merge will clean all this up, (cough).--Lazydown (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn't mean we don't or can't have a bias. NPOV means that the article is fair and balanced. Not too pro Howe and not too negative. Believe me, left to my own devices, I could make the article very negative, but that wouldn't be right or in Wikipedia's spirit. But, let's not try to fool ourselves, we are not jurists and there is no need for us to be neutral in everything we say and do. I think the claim is bunk, but I can (and have been) fair in seeing that the article reflects a NPOV. At least I am clear about that. Newguy34 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BLP1E is intended for such things as the Biggest ball of twine where an article about Francis A. Johnson would indeed fail 1E.--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, per the observation of Carnildo. I would say delete and redirect, but there is a significant amount of content in this article that need not be reproduced, so merging is more appropriate than deleting. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, seems sensible. I'm not quite so certain as some of my colleagues that it will lead to *less* detail however. And I agree Lazydown should be quiet and let the AfD run it's course. You're not helping your cause by responding to *each and every* post here. Wjhonson (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to a very limited extent to King of Mann#Pretender, per above. Otherwise non-notable person only known for that claim. Sandstein (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. Wikipedia is not the venue for establishing one's notability or advancing one's plans. The heavy pushing of agendas in this article by single purpose accounts is disruptive to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the article title is not a likely search term and the King of Manna rticle already has a section whihc covers this. WP:BLP1E applies, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to all. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here, since Howe's claim to notability isn't something he's done, or something that's happened to him. It's something he is, or at least claims to be; the bulk of the media coverage isn't primarily devoted to the coronation or to any specific event, it's devoted to his claim to be King of Mann, and the claim is not an "event" in any meaningful sense. Walton^One 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a matter of interest, the "subject" of the article, Howe, does not seem too bothered viz "I did not create the page and I would not miss it should it meet a speedy demise."--Heraldic 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

So is his notability somehow inherent? According to Howe, his claim isn't based on some unique position as heir (thousands of people descend from the early lords of Man; the heir general of his alleged ancestor Jane Stanley has been identified and is not him). Rather the episode and its notability hinges on Howe having publicized his claim to a title via a newspaper notice and a website, and having that claim get noticed by curious people and eventually the press. I think of the whole claim as a single 'episode', with drawn out sequelae; in this way it seems to me not unlike the one-crime model for marginal notability in WP:BLP1E. I have already voted to delete & redirect. 68.166.235.203 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no way that there are thousands of people who have a greater claim than Howe's and that descend from the early Stanley Lords of Mann. See James Stanley, 10th Earl of Derby. The 11th Earl of Derby went to a distant cousin who's closet relation was nine generations prior and bypassed all the previous Stanley Lords because there were no heirs to be found. Also, no WP:RS has identified Jane Stanley's heir general. Besides, that is a bit of a red-herring. All the Stanley descendants from Edward Stanley, 11th Earl of Derby and beyond descended from Sir James Stanley, the younger brother of Lady Jane Stanley, Howe's multi-gen great grandmother.--Lazydown (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment avoids the issue at hand about notability and unsurprisingly tries to argue the merits of Howe's claim here (and in so doing injects various red herrings and at least one false statement). There is no inherent notability in the true or alleged genealogical fact of descending from someone notable, especially after 400 years (the claim to genealogical distinction as an heir is unsupported by reliable evidence). Remember WP:NOTINHERITED. The article shows that the entire personal notability of Howe stems from him having made a claim to the vacant or nonexistent throne of Man; all press coverage has stemmed from that act or event. If Mr. Howe were also notable for something else -- say being a world-famous martial arts instructor or something -- that might change things. 68.166.235.203 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Asserting that there are thousands of people who could make a similar claim to Howe's is the original red-herring argument and not supported by any reliable source WP:RS. Howe is notable because of the substantial media attention he has received from his claim and the fact that he seems to have beaten the Queen of the United Kingdom, much to the dismay or her supporters here.--Lazydown (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rubbish. The term "heir general" encompasses the heirs of the Earl of Stanley, which includes ALL the later Earls of Stanley, and their cousins the Murrays. The claim is very obviously bogus. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • My understanding was that Wikipedia's goal was to inform rather than misinform. Lazydown seems to have taken Howe's claim without critical analysis. In fact, he has striven to remove any mention of errors in, or objections to, Howe's claim. I have voted for deletion, however, if it is to be retained or redirected it must be stripped to the bear facts.
  • If I might respond to Lazydown's laughable assertion that Howe has somehow "beaten" HMQ; Where is the independent evidence of this mighty victory? Or perhaps Howe has succeeded where Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler failed? Perhaps all they need have done is paid for an advert in the London Gazette and their victory would have been assured?--Heraldic 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep He seems to be written about to a significant degree. The article of course needs some drastic trimming. DGG (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but the article needs to be trimmed to the basics of his biography, with a summary of this controversy. The controversy needs to either be on its own page and summarized at King of Mann#Pretender or simply moved to King of Mann#Pretender. This person clearly meets notability guidelines. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why? Lazydown is arguing that (a) one can gain a throne through placing an advertisement and (b) notability is inherited. What are your arguments per WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided. For some reason, a web site opposing the subject's claims to the crown has been banned from being used as an external link. I am currently appealing that decision. If the opposing site is not allowed to be used as a link, it will not be possible to achieve a neutral point of view and in that case the article should be deleted. However, if the opposing site can be used as a link, the article may warrant being kept (albeit trimmed down). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The web site in question violates all three of Wikipedia's content policies for inclusion, WP:NOR, NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and can't be included even as an external link per Wikipedia's policies.--Lazydown (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, delete. I am skeptical of the idea that content on non-Wikipedia web sites is required to satisfy Wikipedia content policies just to be linked from here. Furthermore, the two web sites currently cited in the external links section consist primarily of original research and are written from a biased point of view with a conflict of interest in favor of the subject of this article. If only sites favoring the subject's claim to be a monarch are allowed to be used as external links, we will never be able to achieve a neutral point of view on this article and therefore it should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a pretender to a throne isn't a "one event." -- Kendrick7^talk 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did a quick "david howe mann" google search, and i found this Fox news article from December 17, 2007. He is still, and most likely will still be, being written about because of the importance of the title he is claiming. Idem Kendrick7 and it meets WP:BIO in an unconventional way.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender As this claim is nothing more than a claim, the relevant information in this article should be moved and the rest deleted. Captain panda 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His claims are ridiculous, but they've drawn media attention and are likely to continue doing so. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found the article and discussion page entertaining, but this guy really isn't notable. Also much of the information appears unverifiable. Perhaps make a three or four line reference to the claim and link to a press article from the "King of Mann" page? 89.242.90.239 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)— 89.242.90.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment. User:jpgordon has done a checkuser (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann) and finds that User:Kingofmann and User:Theisles and User:Lazydown are the same person. Kingofmann denies he has more than one account. Theisles appears to be an old disused account. User:DukeofAntwerp (another old disused account) admitted to being David Howe as does Kingofmann. Kingofmann says he wants the David Howe page deleted; Lazydown fights to keep it. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not necessarily the same person because they lead to the same ip. It could be a wife/husband thing or a father/son thing.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleep (or Keelete) - if the only issue is notability, he's obviously notable. But just because we can have an article doesn't mean we need to. --B (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this argument. If something is notable, why would we not have an article on it? matt91486 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is irredeemably tainted by WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If the article is about somebody who is really notable then it will be recreated soon enough. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a Notable Bio, and will be a "part of the enduring historical record"^[5].--Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The link you've provided says "a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians". There are NO independent history books that mention David Howe. All the books on Isle of Man history agree that the title was held by successive Earls of Derby, then by the Murrays, until it was sold back to the crown. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do not comprehend is why Howe is any more notable than Timothy Alexander, self proclaimed Earl of Stirling? Alexander went to the European Court of Human Rights as part of his "case". That has to be more of an historical event of note rather than some media coverage. However, Wikipedia has removed all mention of his claim from the Earl_of_Stirling article. --Heraldic (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the IP from which "Timothy Alexander" was editing was blocked and his edits reversed by the other contributors to the Earl of Stirling page. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass basic notability requirements. Lawrence Cohen 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to King of Mann The present article is hopelessly COI-tainted, and the news coverage seems ephemeral at best. "Prince Karl von Wettinberg", who has declared himself Holy Roman Emperor without any genealogical basis, has been covered in the news, too [6], but I hardly think he meets notability. Unless there's independent support for the claim, I think the coverage in King of Mann is sufficient description of him for encyclopedic purposes without incorporating further material from here. Choess (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Joshua A. Norton and Nicolás Zúñiga y Miranda and the Fox article. -Dureo (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. BLP subject is completely unnotable apart from internet hoaxes. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have reasoned WP:BLP1E fits the bill. Though as of now King of Mann#Pretender seems to contain the relevant info. What else could be merged over? Also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann has shown that the subject of the article David Howe - User:Kingofmann uses several sockpuppets, including User:Lazydown who has made 22 edits to this discusion alone. Another sock of his User:Theisles was adding things like "David Howe-Stanley... Prince of Man and the Isles" and inserting his webpages into wikipedia articles in 2006 example well before his "notablity". Welcome to world of pretend internet kings.--Celtus (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin. Please also determine deletion (or not) of Image:Kingiomarms.jpg which was uploaded by User:Kingofmann who claimed to own the copyright. But www.royaltyofman.com claims the copyright and in FAQ implicitly denies having released it to public domain and states specifically that he is not posting on other forums. I put it up for image_afd where the discussion was courtesy blanked pending outcome of this afd. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Walton, Matt, and others above. MilesAgain (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I origionaly started the stub and 1E was considered, and did not apply. BLP1E is intended for such things as the Biggest ball of twine where an article about Francis A. Johnson would indeed fail 1E. Things of this substantial nature and despite the WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposition, this is a Notable Bio, and will be a "part of the enduring historical record"^[7]. WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor can this be interperated as "one event". A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[8] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[9] and independent of the subject.^[10]. The depth of coverage is substantial in this case. --Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on notability here have been expressed independent of editors' opinions on the validity of the claim; I think it is unfair to categorize 'delete' comments as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And to say that 1E was 'considered' (by how many?) does not preclude it being considered here anew. The claim is perhaps more notable than other similar claims which have not been memorialized in Wikipedia (cf. the self-proclaimed 'Earl of Stirling' from last year); but I've seen no arguments that the claimant has any notability beyond the context of this claim, so whatever coverage the claim gets, doesn't this still fit 1E? Yes, this is has more notability than a big ball of twine, but it's not necessarily bigger in terms of press coverage than a single crime committed by an otherwise non-notable person, which is another example given for BLP1E. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)— 68.166.235.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, I am another SPA: another newbie, attracted here by the particular case in question (and perhaps that's an argument for its notability and its retention?). But I'm trying to learn Wikipedia norms--not subvert them--and would like to hear your response on the merits of the points I raised. Thank you. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[11] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[12] and independent of the subject.^[13]. The depth of coverage is substantial in this case. This is a Notable Bio, and will be a "part of the enduring historical record"^[14]. WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor can this be interperated as "one event". Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the repetition. I am a newbie, an SPA, but I believe I understand the basics of notability and the threshold on source quality, etc. But BP:BLP1E is an couched as an exception to the notability rules; that is, even if the sources are numerous and independent, if they all cover essentially one thing (this man's claim to a throne), doesn't that then miss the bar for inclusion? That's how I interpreted the 'crime' or 'standing for election' examples in the BLP1E passage: one can assume that either event would be covered in perfectly reputable sources, but that would not necessarily transfer notability back to the person who did one thing. As to the unity of the event: What has Howe actually done? He made a particularly audacious claim on a website. What else has Howe done? A lot of hours on Wikipedia. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not make for exemption of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (people) →"...What has Howe actually done? He made a particularly audacious claim on a website. What else has Howe done? A lot of hours on Wikipedia"^[15].--Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not make for an exemption from Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, but WP:BLP1E does. My worlds you quoted above sound like a condemnatory rhetorical question, but it is a simple substantive one: what *has* Howe done? Can his own actions to earn notability be parsed as more than one action (i.e. making this claim)? I suppose you can enumerate actions by saying that (event 1) he made a claim; and (events 2-n) he spoke to journalists about (event 1). In some ways I would be sorry to see the page go (and I get the sense you would too, since you created the stub), but I sincerely believe we are dealing with 1E and have not seen a valid counterargument to that specific issue. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a clear missapplication of WP:BLP1E in instaces where encyclopedic suitability of an article topic is met by;

1. A person has been the subject of published^[16] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[17] and independent of the subject.^[18].
2. The depth of that coverage is substantial, and will continue to be.
3. A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
4. This will be a "part of the enduring historical record"^[19], of which WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor can it overide or be interperated as "one event".

Seems repetative, however All these are major encyclopedic suitability criteria of an article topic.--Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; is now repetitive. You note that this meets basic biographical notability thresholds. I agree that it does, but that in addition it falls into the special case of 1E, by which persons who meet notability by the other criteria, fail if all the press responds to one event, not a pattern of notability of the person. You haven't addressed why you think Howe's notability isn't 1E, which is what I first asked you for when I replied to your comment. But at any rate we've made our opinions clear as line items on this AfD. Time for others now. Cheers. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So I am trying to understand this. Howe does (or has done for him) some Original Research and declares himself to be King of Mann. He then becomes notable because he persuades a small number of news organizations to write articles about his claim (all based on his Original Research, I have seen no other evidence that anyone else has seriously investigated his claims and found them in any way valid, so they can hardly be described as intellectually independent). Is merely getting people to write about you as a human interest silly season story (hardly substantial coverage) enough to become a notable person? The only site that I have seen which has published any other research on this has been disallowed by the Admin Hu12 as not meeting Wikipedia guidelines because it also included statements deriding the claim. I can see how including a paragraph about his claim in King of Mann is justifiable but not a full article about his otherwise very non-notable life. Dabbler (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- --Tom 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Hu12 and his arguements that this is not a BLP1E situation. Multiple secondary sources then indicate notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that he also claims to be the Duke of Antwerp, which - as I understand it - is a crime in Belgium, where the nobility is alive and well. DS (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (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.