Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland. Tone 10:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna (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)

Per the recently closed Princess Adrienne nomination, which sums up to the following:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say about
Catherine's very young child??? They are great-grand sons or daughters of Queen.Cape Diamond MM (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The deletion of articles on children who have only received
    not a directory of genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I agree fully Necrothesp. BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You actually, seriously believe that having articles on grandchildren of reigning monarchs undermines Wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopaedia?! How about great-grandchildren of ruling monarchs, like the children of Princes William and Harry? Can't say a great deal about them either, but any serious encyclopaedia would cover them. Presumably, not being from an English-speaking country, the Swedish royal family is an easy target for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is not what I believe. I wrote what I believe. There will be time to reconsider other articles but William's children may be attracting more significant coverage due to being children of a future king, unlike the subject of this article. The point is that significant coverage matters. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Queen has a number of grandchildren who are never going to be children of a monarch. They all have articles. The coverage of them and of William's children is only routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe that the coverage of some other persons is routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person, I encourage you to propose those articles for deletion and make your case. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's the point, you see. I realise that notability is often not only defined by rigid rules, but by a sense that some topics just are notable and of value to an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... no. Frankly, I am aghast by the notion of "a sense that some topics just are notable". But consider your contribution duly noted. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I am continually aghast at the inability of some editors to see beyond "the rules" and use their discretion. But there you go... -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a .sig I use on VBulletin forums, and have for many years: "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." I won't say that I'm "aghast" at the ongoing ability of people to equate "discretion" and "common sense" by their own shibboleths -- there's only so long righteous indignation will take a person -- but. Ravenswing 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything there is to know about this toddler can be said in the article about his father, and a redirect would lead you to that information. The article about Donald Trump's 14-year-old son is looked up 50 times more often, and yet a redirect does just fine there too. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at once His older brother's article has been deleted, but this is still here. Why? These are living people, the parents and the little boys, whose lives & life stories should not be handled with such carelessness because a few Wikipedians like to have tiresomely lengthy and supercilious discussions about them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: Brushing off the illegitimate
    significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. You can't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." Ravenswing 16:12, 21 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Gabriel,_Duke_of_Dalarna&oldid=974487620"