[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:CFORK. The content on this page is completely redundant to the information featured on the main article (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor); it's essentially a word by word copy. So either this page needs to be redirected to the main page or a huge chunk of information needs to be removed from Andrew's page. I'll leave it to the community to decide. Keivan.fTalk 22:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The title is more appropriate for the royal family. If there might be some info tidbits in this one that are not in the original article, it would be easier to later just add the missing info to the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor article. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Sexuality and gender, United Kingdom, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, I think this subject is independently notable and warranting of a page. As you said, since this is a fork, the appropriate action would be to remove the similar content from Andrew's page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Remove the excess material from the main article. Consider folding Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal and/or Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew into Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. meamemg (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'd rather keep those two separate because even if we avoid having all of their contents added to this article, there will still be a large amount of info left to be contained within this new page. Not to mention that both subjects (the Panorama episode and the lawsuit) are independently notable. Keivan.fTalk 00:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. There is sufficient sourcing to show this is independently notable and worth a separate article and instead of deleting we should remove the similar content.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)