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. In closing this discussion, I have read all of the comments below, and taken them all into account. There were some very good points on both sides, however, there is no question that the child is notable - Wikipedia's policies on notability make this clear. The strongest argument against keeping the article was Hebel's argument, succinctly put as "What if, due to some tragic set of circumstances, it is not born?". In such a terrible eventuality, we would probably have to have another discussion as to the best way to deal with the article (renaming for example). However, it would not be right to assume such an eventuality, and in any case, the child would still be notable. I think the next step is for those involved to agree on a title (and possibly agree on a pronoun...) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (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)

I was one of the users who supported the retention of the article about Prince George while he was still a foetus. Retaining it made sense because there was a lot written in it and a lot more to be written about its subject. That is not the case here. All we have is a pregnancy announcement, which hasn't drawn nearly as much "immediate and worldwide attention" as the first pregnancy. This pregnancy is not as constitutionally important, as the CNN noted. The ship may have sailed already, but I don't think we should set a precedent for articles about any royal/celebrity pregnancy. The main point, however, is that this is not an article about the "second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". It is an article about a pregnancy announcement. Its purported subject is not [yet] notable. Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the last one, the title of this article seems rather presumptious/ inaccurate. How convoluted would the grammar have to be if a subsequent announcement of twins, without any indication of gender, is made? Or has this possibility been ruled out already? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official announcement reads "second child". DrKiernan (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite clear then/. So we are left with the issue of "foetus notability". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 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 September 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion A foetus is not yet a child. What if, due to some tragic set of circumstances, it is not born? Therefore I would argue merging it's contents with the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and abandon this one altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably best to keep and let the article develop - we expect it to end up as an article on a notable person, and even now the fact of the pregnancy (and hence also the unborn child in question - even if it is never born) is notable. But it would also be reasonable to have this as part of the article on the mother; my opinion on the matter is not particularly strong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (As article creator). I fully understand that it is an unusual subject and a reasonable thing to bring to AfD - I bear no malice against this deletion notice. This was my edit summary when I first created the article: Creating article about William and Catherine's 2nd Child. I am aware WP is 'not news' and this child is not even born, but this IS a 'Notable' person and WILL be created sooner or later. When in doubt IAR.

I agree that at present the sources are about the announcement (and not the baby per-se) but I disagree that the article will not rapidly gain significant amounts of content as the world media creates a flurry over every tiny detail (I make no moral judgements about this media-circus, it's just a fact) from this moment on. The baby will not be the direct heir to the throne but, when born will be 4th which is still constitutionally significant (just not as significant as its elder brother). I suspect the child will have a lifetime of learning that it is "not as significant" as it's brother... but that's a different point! :-) I agree that no precedent should be set for "famous foetuses" and there are several policies that could be used against this article including "Not News", "Crystal ball" or perhaps even some sub-section of the BLP policy - see also the original successful deletion debate about the foetus that eventually became prince George. However, as per my edit summary, I think this is a legitimate and necessarily rare case of IAR. There WILL be ongoing media-coverage about this subject and whether we want to scope it as an "event" article about the pregnancy or a "biography" article about the child there will eventually be an article here - it's just a matter of whether the article exists now, or is re-created later. At worst, this is an article of currently-questionable notability that will become increasingly notable over the next few months. Even taken at this lowest threshold, I see no benefit to the Encyclopedia to deleting an article that is most certainly going to be recreated in 9 months or less.

As regards the discussion of the possibility that the foetus does not reach full-term, then in such terrible circumstances the coverage and long-term historical interest in that "event" would most certainly warrant a WP article. Not a nice discussion to have, but it would be "notable" either way. Wittylama 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or moving it to something like: "Second pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge". Deleting it, and moving the contents to Catherine's (and William's) articles has my preference however, as I stated above. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know (nor is it our business really) how many times in her life she's been pregnant (unless "second pregnancy" has been officially stated, like "second child" has been). W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Second pregnancy of Kate Middleton since she became Duchess of Cambridge"? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KISS. That title is a bit of a mouthfull. "since she became" is not needed as she was not pregnant before. She is no longer called Middleton, that was her surname prior to marriage. Martin451 15:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say "this IS a 'Notable' person", but I think this rather depends on whether or not one sees a foetus as "a person". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one doesn't, then it's a notable foetus. A notable subject, simply. One that reliable sources write about. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, W. P. Uzer - I'm not trying to make philosophical claims about what the definition of "a person" is, all I mean is that the foetus at the centre of this debate, once born, will without-question have their own WP biography. The question on this deletion debate is since we know that fact, how early is too early to create the article :-) Wittylama 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:BLP apply here? Or only to its mother? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside... I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in countries like the Netherlands and Spain, a foetus is already in line to the throne and can even succeed to the throne while still in the mothers womb! If it is stillborn afterwards it will be considered as having never existed! There have been examples. John II of France and Alfonso XIII of Spain! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. But is it agreed that it's not a child, and so the article title is misleading? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open to suggestions as to the title of the article - obviously it would need to be changed later on anyway when the child is named/receives an official title. I don't think we need to get hung-up on semantics though for the purposes of this debate here. Wittylama 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans, yes that is my opinion. Wittylama, I suggested "Second pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge", or something like that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's not a child, but even if it's not - something doesn't have to exist yet (or exist at all) to have an article about it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that sure that a foetus is a child in all stages of it's fruition, but that's an other matter altogether. One which we preferably shouldn't get into here. Neither should we get in to (at least not here) the question whether non existing entities deserve an article on Wikipedia. The pregnancy after all is not non-existing. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per WP:GNG Even though the child (or children) has not been born yet, it is generating significant worldwide coverage, and will do for the next six of so months. The Duchess is suffering from Hyperemesis gravidarum which is why the pregnancy was announced early, adding to the notability. Betting companies are already taking bets[1] as to the child's name, sex, eye colour, age at birth, weight etc. Martin451 15:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha. Not always the best criterion for article creation. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have an idea- why not create an article about the Duchess's Hyperemesis gravidarum? This article is a terrible quality article and I don't think an announcement is enough for the keep. The article is one big IF. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a Vote I am not sure what I am supposed to say to prove this is not a vote but at the moment I am neutral on this as we may get more info about the newborn but then again we might not. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator: The article creator says that "there WILL be ongoing media-coverage about this subject..." Why not wait until there is media coverage? I, for one, doubt there will ever be enough to warrant an article. The article about George was created a month before his birth, not seven months before the birth like this one. Within days of creation, it had a section explaining international reaction and expected impact on economy (as well as a photograph of the expecting mother and a photograph of the hospital where the birth was to take place). That's the stuff that helped the article survive nomination deletions. That's what made it encyclopedic, not the fact that child was to be a prince and in line to a throne, and that's what this article lacks. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seriously "doubt there will ever be enough to warrant an article" about this person? This is going to be one of the most watched and reported-on people in Britain for the rest of their life. The closest equivalent person for comparison is Prince Harry (the other "second brother" of the British royal family and current "fourth place" in line) and he is a B-class article with 68,830 bytes. The mere fact of this child's existence has garnered gushing news coverage from many countries (and 'well wishes' from world leaders) and that's before any newspapers have been printed. Within Britain there will be a nauseatingly large amount of press coverage over the next months about the pregnancy and birth, followed by a lifetime of being a subject of paparazzi and official press-releases. Will this be quality journalism - not necessarily, but will this child receive "enough to warrant an article", in your words - most certainly.

This child will receive an article eventually as no one would seriously deny its "notability" once born, the question is when is too early to start the article? Wittylama 19:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tending towards "keep" (probably "snow keep"), despite being an English republican. However, I am wondering what we'd do in the unfortunate event of a miscarriage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd delete it, of course, and that's another reason why this is not an article fit for encyclopedia. Something that's encyclopedic material now should be encyclopedic material tomorrow as well. Otherwise it's just news. Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to disagree that we'd delete the article. Rather, it would probably morph from being an article less like a biography and more like an "event". If this pregnancy somehow didn't reach full term, it would covered by countless news sources and then would become a morbid fact recalled by every Royal-watching documentary and book for decades. Wittylama 19:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can imagine few things more distasteful, and perhaps more distressing for the parents. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is really a very morbid topic - but I think that our discussions of what, in such circumstances would be blanket media coverage, would be very restrained. I fear for what the UK tabloids would print... Wittylama 20:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would imagine that a single sentence, or even just a few words, in the articles for William and Kate, would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I realize we have a lot about monarchies, but this is going a bit far. PatGallacher (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For now. Later we can have an article about an unborn baby when there is more information. In Prince George's article there was even an image of the Duchess when she was expecting. Edit: Although I want this article deleted, there is a chance that this article will be kept. In that case Rename to Second confirmed pregnancy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I expect more will be written when the Duchess visits Malta but I really think this article should be deleted. Even people who are interested in royals should be reasonable enough to delete articles that don't make sense.This article is a terrible quality article and I don't think an announcement is enough for the keep. The article is one big IF. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has a content outside the living people biography context: there will be some works to cover and analyze the links between the announcement, the birth and the Scottish independence referendum. The article already covers, with reference to recent news articles, this aspect of the subject. It will then go beyond WP:NOT#NEWS to offer context and analysis. --Dereckson (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it deserves inclusion (as a news item) at Scottish independence referendum, 2014? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe it's not the best argument, but if there isn't an official page for this child, I suspect there will end up being multiple competing and incomplete pages as has happened for other royal babies, including Prince George. Unless there is a specific way to make all prospective pages redirect to Catherine's page (as the mother), it seems to me like this page should stay. Metheglyn (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm for and against deleting this ... But at the end of the day we should just let the article grow ... Anyway meets GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not meet GNG any more than the pregnancy of the Princess of Monaco does. Her child will be first in line, not fourth, for what's that worth. (I have a feeling I'll regret saying this...) As I said, I was in favour of retaining the article about the "first foetus" because it was created a month before the birth and contained enough information to look acceptable, if somewhat bizarre. This one is seven months early and does not look like an encyclopedic article. This article is a mere pregnancy announcement. It will only serve to discredit Wikipedia for at least half a year. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentInteresting to see that people who supported the first oppose this one- and for a good reason.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just too soon. Plenty of chance to recreate when this foetus has a much more likely chance of life. Wiki would look pretty silly if she lost this baby. Recreate a month or so before birth due.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the nomination statement that this topic is not notable is clearly in error. According to the general notability guideline, a topic is notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The announcement has received an enormous level of coverage in such sources, including from the BBC, the ABC, CNN, The Washington Post and others. Quite clearly, there is enough coverage here to satisfy the general notability guideline, and then some. If you feel that the coverage is skewed because it's "just an announcement", even though this argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy, you can see the reams of coverage being generated on other aspects of the story, including this article on Kate's morning sickness from the New Zealand Herald, this article on conspiracy theories relating to the announcement and the Scottish referendum, or this article on Alex Salmond's choice of words in his response on Twitter. Given that this is getting wall to wall TV coverage as well out here in the colonies, I think it fair to say that there'll be plenty more coverage of this before this AFD is due to be closed. To address some other arguments made in favour of deletion, "Wiki" will not look "silly" if Kate loses the baby, a royal miscarriage will be a notable event even more dramatic than a birth announcement, and the article can simply be renamed should such a series of events occur. I fully expect that the article will change, grow, and be renamed as more information comes to hand, but those are not reasons to delete the article now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• As far as I can see, "coverage" is now over for the time being. What else were you expecting, exactly? Cancelling a viist to Malta (or not) can be easily dealt with in Kate's article. I'm really not sure why this is not just a sub-section in her article until the birth. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because, even though the article as it currently stands has limited content, with each passing week there will be some new factoid released or point of public discussion. If it were all kept in a "second pregnancy" section of the mother's article it would grow to a disproportionate size and need to be broken off to a sub-article - this article. Wittylama 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factoids? "Duchess appears with bump.."; "Katherine appears with slightly bigger bump.."; "Duchess buys maternity dress.."? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I gather you think that the media ga-ga over this is quite silly, and I'd agree with you. Nevertheless, the fact that newspaper and television journalistsare showering us with reliable sources means that this meets the WP:GNG quite handily. More coverage over the coming days is inevitable but not required, as the topic is notable right now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying Witty's predictions are a little optimistic and irrelevant. At the moment I see this as a news-story worthy of a few lines in the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Lankiveil has argued - this article already meets GNG as a minimum standard, and even if my predictions about are optimistic the child will most certainly get their own biography page sooner or later. The question is really only "how soon is too soon?". Wittylama 11:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some media outlets have reported that the pregnancy may affect the Scottish independence referendum figures. This suggests that the foetus is already notable. -- Chuq (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gordon Brown's announcement of "super-devolution" may affect the referendum figures. Does that mean it deserves its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If super-devolution becomes a "thing" then that should become an article, with Gordon Brown's announcement cited within it. Just as the reporting of a (claimed) connection between the baby-announcement and the independence referendum has been footnoted (four times) in this article. Wittylama 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if. Yes, this particular "factoid" has four supporting references, but it really needs only one. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put four in because I felt that the suggestion of the pregnancy having an impact on the referendum was a bold/controversial claim and therefore needed multiple citations. But feel free to remove one or two if you think they're superfluous to the point being argued. Wittylama 11:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know anything about "super-devolution" - it hasn't received significant media coverage here in Australia, whereas the royal pregnancy has - which I think proves my point. To clarify, the connection to the referendum isn't what makes it notable - the child will be fourth in line to the British throne and so will clearly be notable in any case - but to those who say "too soon", the connection of the referendum is an example of how it is already having an effect on other events. -- Chuq (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I think the renaming suggested by Gerard von Hebel above to "Second Pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge" has merit, as it is the pregnancy that seems to be notable at this moment and not just the child itself. As for not knowing how many times she has been pregnant, we only have reliable sources for Prince George and this one, which is all that really matters. We could also merge this with her page since she is the one that is pregnant. If either of those is not done, then I think this should be kept per the reasons given above. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think pregnancy announcement or Second confirmed pregnancy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be a better title.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not pregnant? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just let it snowball. Otherwise, another article will be created in the near future. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it this way. You don't need it to be so serious! Shame on Wiki for saying the child may never be born! -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.224 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly support delete, although it will probably be kept. Question: will we keep Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge when that gets created at the mere mention of another pregnancy? Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not kidding. If this article is kept, I will create this page. This article is is barely about a child aside from stating the child's position in the line of succession and any article about a direct heir to the throne can do that. Not to mention that the heir to the throne of Monaco will affect the position of The Hereditary Princess of Monaco[2]. And as discussed above, in some countries a person who is not yet born is in the line of succession so why keep the article of one direct heir but not another? The article creator who created this article used the policy IAR (which makes no sense, but neither does Wikipedia).--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any judgement about the viability of an article on the unborn Child of the Prince and Princess of Monaco - but since you expressed your opinion that the article under discussion here should be deleted, then you might fall foul of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Wittylama 07:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe a new Monaco Royal Baby can save the Union! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Other stuff exists doesn't apply if the article to be created has good sources proving that it's notable. And as I said before I wanted this article deleted because it's too early, not because it's not notable. I would have never thought of creating an article of an unborn person if there hadn't been precedent. With precedent people feel encouraged to create similar articles though not always notable. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently unsure how to title the article though, as there's a report that says she's expecting twins.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, there isn't! It's all padding. Just ask the good doctor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) ,,, no, wait, it's true[reply]

I would support the creation of Child of the Prince and Princess of Monaco - until the child has a name, starting the article under this name would make sense to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and also Support the Monacan fetus The last one set the precedent for unborn children with significant coverage. Especially ones in line to things. It's not "crazy" anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Until born, article should probably be renamed Second pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge, but the event (and subsequent birth and biography) is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is nothing here to have a separate article about. A woman is pregnant, and she is a notable woman, so her article mentions her pregnancy. When the baby is born... well, in my opinion, he/she won't actually be notable even then - notability is not inherited, right? - but I know my opinion will not prevail at that point. Until that time, at least, let's not jump the gun. Neutron (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the argument that the baby might not deserve an article yet (that's what this AfD is about after all) but I think you'd be a minority of 1 to seriously suggest that the child wouldn't be notable even once it's born... In the 21st Century the media and public really shouldn't care about one woman's pregnancy, I agree, but the unfortunate fact is that they do. Wittylama 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is not notable. The child's mother is doing the living for it. Notability is not inherited doesn't apply if the subject is about a member of a royal house. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited says that holding an official position such as first lady or being a member of the royal house is being notable. As soon as it's born it will be notable as a member of a royal house. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, having an article on an embryo is premature. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to compliment you on that pun :-) Wittylama 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The article does not contravene any policies. It:

- Contains no unverifiable speculation.

- Is not about an anticipated future event, it is about an unborn child.

- Is about a subject which demonstrably already enjoys wide interest.

- Only contains predictions or speculation of future events which is verifiable from reliable expert sources, is notable and is almost certain to take place. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Quite simply, the third in line is notable enough for his own article. Whether or not this child on birth will be notable enough as the fourth in line, notablity is too little at this stage for an article. Meantime, a redirect to one of the two parents should suffice: Pregnancy and motherhood[3] or Fatherhood[4]. Qexigator (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It has been pointed out that the pregnancy has attracted media attention and perhaps that would justify an article, although it is probably best kept in the article about the Duchess. In the meantime we have almost no information about the fetus. TFD (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing user Those that say keep point out that there is media attention about the child. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited says that children of celebrities are also not notable "although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child." When the child is born, it will be notable as a member of a royal house. There are some that have said that renaming is better than deleting as the article would not imply that the child is born. This is the problem with keeping articles like this. They have no official name or title. And if the article is renamed, there isn't a need to say second child as people already knows who the first child is. The article is about the current unborn child doesn't need to say first or second. The page or redirect Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambrige is available since it was deleted upon the announcement of this pregnancy.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on note to closing user. However, this unborn child is clearly already notable in their own right. The reliable sources concentrate on the unborn child, and the child's future, and not on the parents. This is not just the child of a celebrity, they will be 4th in line to the British throne and to the thrones of numerous other nations. Bo.Clive (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the parents are the only reason for this future child being "4th in line to the British throne". News sources are hardly likely to "concentrate on the parents" as they are already quite well-known? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for notability are irrelevant, that the unborn child is notable in their own right is all that is required for them to qualify for an article under WP:GNG. Bo.Clive (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the "reasons for notability" are totally relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? GNG only requires notabilty - which is what we have. Bo.Clive (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Foetus of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, since it's crystal-balling to call it a "child" yet. Or if you want something shorter, Foetus of Cambridge. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is clearly a notable topic that already has, and will continue to have, widespread coverage in reliable sources. The article can easily be moved to the name of the child (or children) when their names are known; or if the worst happens, then I'm sure that there will be far too many reliable sources available to expand the article significantly. :-/ Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 18 September 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.