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 keep. Retaining move to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of Princess Madeleine[edit]

Daughter of Princess Madeleine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to her mothers page. Doesn't seem to be notable to me just like Zara Phillips daughter, Mia Tindall who was born on 17 January, 2014. AY88 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless they intend to legally name the child this exact name, there's no need for this to exist. Just a bunch of royal-cruft about citizenship and the like. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The name will be published within a few days after her birth, at a government meeting probably on Monday. Then we will for sure have this article, and would have to re-enter the information if it is deleted. Articles about people are had if the person is notable, and even if the name is not published she does exist. We have a function for title change of articles.--BIL (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add that the fact that many have contributed to this voting hints that many pay attention to this subject, meaning the girl should be notable. Several of the opponents seem to oppose her because they don't like royalties, not because few know about the girl. Although they use the usual formula "It is" instead of the real "my opinion is", in this case something like "royalties are not interesting" instead of the real "I don't like royalties". The fact that several don't like a person does not make that person not notable.--BIL (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With or without name, this child is not notable. She is not even expected to ever be notable. Her mother hardly performs any duties anymore, which is why her father is neither titled nor a member of the royal family. The child will in all likelihood be raised where she was born and where her parents have resided for years, which means that she will never perform any official duties or have any significant role within the monarchy. If, years from now, she becomes notable on her own or due to a freak accident claiming the lives of her aunt and cousin, having an article will be appropriate. As it stands now, it is not. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I say keep if we can add more information. There is no point in the Zara Phillips reference. Zara Phillips doesn't even have a title and she earned her article as well as being a grandchild of the sovereign but her daughter won't have a title either and will rank lower than her in order of precedence so she'll have to earn her article. There are other articles about royal children who haven't achieved anything. Princess Athena of Denmark has an article, but I think in her case she can have her article a) because her parents are relatively active in royal duties b)she has a title as Countess of Monpezat c)her siblings all have articles d)she is a grandchild of the sovereign. The previous few points were about Princess Athena, who is in similar situation but is at least is named. Also I want to point out that the currently unnamed is obviously 5th in line to the throne. That is a huge deal compared to those in other countries that are 30th in line (and some of them have articles anyway). If contributors really can't find more information about Princess Madeleine's daughter then delete, but otherwise no. But seriously, this article should have been created after the subject is named. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say with much certainty that everything known about her is already there. She is, after all, two days old. For what it's worth, I am not convinced that we should have an article about a princess so insignificant that her parents got to name her after a pagan goddess. Anyway, the existence or nonexistence of another article is not an argument for either deleting or keeping this one, per Wikipedia's policy on deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually according to the policy, an existing article can be noted so that Wikipedia will have consistency of it's articles. The policy just states that there's no guarantee that the article will be kept just because another one is.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tindalls daugther is 16th in line this child is fifth. Huge difference. And all titles will be revealed in a day or two.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that we have an article about Princess Athena of Denmark does not mean that we should have an article about this infant, just like not having an article about Mia Tindall does not mean that we should not have an article about the infant. We should not have it because she is not notable, and nobody expects her to be. Given that her parents reside in the US and have little to no role in Sweden, it is obvious that she is in for no official role, not even as a minor royal. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just seem desperate if you try to convince me that this article is not notable. So do not even bother.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a convincing argument! Sigh. Such a sad lack of manners. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was hoping to keep this article in the format of Prince George's article- not that his article is any reason to keep this one, but just to follow the format would be good. However, his article was kept because people were able to add so much to it(not including the fact that he is higher ranked).--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Infants are not notable. She has done nothing of note. We do not even know how long she will live. We do not create articles on members of royal families who died at age 5 in 1770.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point out that the editor above is wrong. It's true that most infants aren't notable, but some attend royal events with their parents and go everywhere their parents go which is basically what the parents do except that the parents are the ones who are invited. Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrice of France died at 11 months. Some say she is notable because of her death, because it cause her parents a lot of grief not to mention the fact that she had a title and rank at the time. The article also gives a detailed description of the baby.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Infants are notable if they at birth becomes fifth in line for the throne of an entire country. And not very notable if they are 16th to the throne like that Tindall kid.. Here is true nobility. Your speculations about her untimely death is not just totally irrelevant im afraid but also frankly confusing as an argument for deletion. I do not think you own a magic ball to see into the future. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing user - The user who created this AfD has only made two edits and with those creating this AfD. And the user seems to not understand Wikipedias notability guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user who opened the AfD could have been anonymous, known only by his or her IP address. The status is absolutely irrelevant. According to that logic, all articles proposed for deletion by administrators would end up being deleted. See argumentum ad verecundiam, a "common logical fallacy". Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to Wikipedia Notability (people) Guide, the subject is notable if it is the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject. Currently the unnamed subject has been covered by a lot of sources, but still hasn't been named. Which is why I think it's a bad idea to create articles for the unnamed unless they've been significantly covered before they're born (in which case it's still a bad idea but it's an exception). Media coverage will come eventually if people are willing to keep this article long enough.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am of the view that all royals are notable especially the ones that have been the subject of multiple, reliable, independent sources before even being born. Read WP:GNG.--Launchballer 22:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that we do not know if she is royal or not. She may as well be non-royal, like her father. Nothing has been confirmed yet. And whether or not all royals are indeed notable is very debatable. I sincerely doubt you could argue that Princess Rita of Liechtenstein is notable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is already known that she will be fifth in line for the throne. And what does Princess Rita has to do with this article. Pointing to another unrelated article is not a reason for deletion in a separate case.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no article about Rita. Launchballer said that he believes all royals are notable, and I pointed out to one member of a reigning family who could hardly be called notable. Anyway, being in line to the throne does not make one royal. Karin Vogel is not royal. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, what does Karin Vogel has to do with anything? As I said bringing up an unrelated subject is not a reason for deletion in another separate case. I will not respond further to this as I can see we are going in circles.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are repeating what I already said. I said that Athena and Tindall are not relevant here, because other stuff exists. On the other hand, it is a perfectly reasonable practice to cite examples when trying to counter someone's argument. When I said that she might or might not be considered royal, you mentioned her place in the line of succession, and I noted that being in the line of succession does not make one royal. Even if it did, few would agree that every royal person is notable. This is called a discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from the opinion that an article should not be created for a newborn person until that person has a name, with which I could agree, I see nothing convincing and several non-knowledgeable statements in the reasoning to delete, and I see a dogged argumentativeness on the part of one single user, over and over, who seems to want to dominate the subject. That too (agreeing with BabbaQ) would make me unusually hesitant to delete. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder who might be the object of your new thinly veiled personal attacks! If I were going to make I guess, I would say it's the same guy you badmouth at other users' talk pages – but I am not the guessing kind. You are, in fact, so focused on this one editor that you failed to mention any argument for keeping the article. Which BabbaQ's argument do you agree with, exactly? All he or she said is that her name would be revealed soon. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rest my case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What case? Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surtsicna, is it really worth picking a fight over this AfD? Serge said he rested his case, get over it. I will not look at this AfD again until it has been closed as it is obviously a heated topic for some. For some reason that is beyond me :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I take it you refer to SergeWoodzing's usual personal attacks. Don't worry, I hardly care anymore. I know it irks him that I am not offended :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Although I think there is an excess of royalcruft on Wikipedia, I am prepared to accept that grandchildren of monarchs are inherently notable, although I would object to going any further. PatGallacher (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no precedent for having articles on grandchildren of royals, per (the king's sister) Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson. In Scandinavia, they are not regarded as notable and all other comparable ones live private lives. It is telling that none of Mrs. Magnuson's children have Wikipedia biographies. Vanasan (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The children of Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson are not heirs to the throne and never have been. Princess Leonore is and has been since she was born. Bandy boy (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grandchildren of royals typically have articles only if they are also royal themselves. The Princess Royal and Princess Caroline of Monaco's children are probably special cases, because there is enough international interest in them to warrant individual articles. Princess Christina's children are only great-grandsons of a monarch at any rate, and receive little media attention even in Sweden. They have no place in the line of succession and no royal titles or duties, afaik. I am of the opinion that being a royal is in itself notable in the general scheme of things, but the scope of that notability varies greatly depending on the country and the royal family itself. Morhange (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the Swedish RF's website has published information for a cabinet meeting scheduled for tomorrow indicating that Madeleine's daughter will receive a titleCabinet meeting, Wednesday 26 February 2014 Morhange (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Hopefully they will state her place in the line, so that we have a definitive source on the matter. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No less notable than Prince George of Cambridge. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also I see that she is now a duchess in her own right, which is probably inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't actually mentioned here, though I'm tempted to boldly add it.--Launchballer 16:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Princess Leonore now has a name and an official Swedish noble title. She's clearly part of the small group of the Swedish Royal House in line for the throne. Metheglyn (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She is a newborn child and not notable for any merits. Notability is not inherited, so her maternal grandfather being a king doesn't make her notable from birth as well (although it is entirely possible that she becomes notable in her own right later in life). She is also not a princess, as royal status is only inherited patrilineally in Scandinavia. Her father has no royal status or title and is only known as Christopher Paul O'Neill. She is comparable to the children of the king's sister Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson, all of whom are named Magnuson, none of whom are royal and none of whom have Wikipedia biographies. Vanasan (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, sorry? She is a princess, and if royal status is only inherited patrilineally in Scandinavia, how does her cousin Estelle have a title? Why are Margrethe II of Denmark's sons princes and not mere counts? Will Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway's future children not be royal despite their mother being future queen regnant? All three royal succession laws in Scandinavia operate on absolute primogeniture now, meaning the eldest child, regardless of gender inherits, and as we've already seen with Sweden, daughters, especially when the eldest children is a daughter and future monarch, can pass their royal status on to their children. Even in Belgium, Princess Astrid's children were all given extant royal titles to go with their Austrian ones. This is in no way comparable to the king's sisters, because they are not and never were in line for the throne. They never had succession rights. The law, limited to Carl Gustaf's descendants (and Prince Bertil) changed in 1980, and the way royal titles are inherited changed with it. Princess Christina never had a place in the line of succession and so her children are not royal and likely never will be. Princess Madeleine, on the other hand, has a royal title and style an dfull succession rights, and as of now, so does her daughter. Morhange (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Swedish constitution changed 1980, so that Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson and her children was left outside the line of succession. So, you cannot compare with them. And Scandinavia haven't had any royal family since the 16th century. But Sweden, Norway and Denmark have royal families. And the probability that Leonore will become queen of Sweden is smaller than that Sweden will become a republic. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, she is in line to the succession to the throne and not that far from it. Bandy boy (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough for inclusion.--81.225.107.105 (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now has a name and a title and is fifth in line to the throne. Of course she's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - page has been moved to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland. ₆an⁶sh₆ 11:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDEQ, I'll move it back/forth as part of the closing. ISTR the script gets confused otherwise, and manual tidying will be required. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'd carelessly assumed that the (original) article title was that used in the AfD. I now see that the AfD was also moved. If the logs etc. are updated then I suppose that's OK... however, in my experience, it's simpler to wait until the discussion is closed before moving anything. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:30, 6 March 2014 (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.