Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (2nd nomination)

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 delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. I have to discount the opinions assuming that nobility are automatically notable, because nothing in our guidelines says so, and it's also not our usual practice (see also

WP:GNG, and these arguments have not been rebutted by the "keep" side. Sandstein 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland

AfDs for this article:

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

Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it was discussed a few months ago in the deletion discussions about her siblings (

WP:LOWPROFILE) throughout her life and she will never be a public figure unlike her mother Princess Madeleine. The article should at best be redirected to the appropriate section on Madeleine's article, just like the ones for her siblings. Keivan.fTalk 07:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Eight in line for the throne of Sweden. Good sourcing. Extensive coverage of this the first child Princess Madeleine. AfD results of other articles has no baring on this article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • How is she notable per WP:GNG? Where is the independent coverage of the subject? The only notable event covered about her is her birth (
    WP:NOTINHERITED) and requires independent coverage by secondary sources. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply
    ]
  • That is not a valid reason for notability, and the discussions that took place about the articles on her siblings and cousins show that the community also thinks the same way. As an example, Princess Astrid of Belgium and Prince Laurent of Belgium's children are well ahead in line to the throne, but none of them have independent articles here, because they fail the general notability criteria despite being princes/sses and in line to the throne. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the result of the first nomination seven years ago and actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG. –Cupper52Discuss! 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys have to make up your mind about other AfDs having a bearing on this one or not. Nevertheless, I should mention that two AfDs were opened for her sister Adrienne as well, with the first one resulting in keep and the second one resulting in delete. So any outcome is possible. The statement actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG is also wrong. I have already provided an example from Belgium in my previous comment. Other examples would be Infanta Cristina of Spain's children or Princess Märtha Louise of Norway's children, who are also in line to the throne, yet no stand-alone article exists for them, with most of them being deleted or redirected. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Keivan.fTalk 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions. Keivan.fTalk 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Interesting. You say an old AfD on this article established notability, and then you ignore the results of other AfDs about similar articles on which the whole community voted. You either take AfDs into consideration or you don't. We cannot only cherry-pick the ones that support our narrative. I should also mention that two AfDs were opened for her sister Adrienne as well, with the first one
    WP:LOWPROFILE. Keivan.fTalk 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • TompaDompa You're right. I sometimes get carried away. But since BabbaQ restated his points and changed his vote again, I thought maybe I should restate my points as well one last time to wrap it up. It's up to other users now. Keivan.fTalk 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very notable person, and the article is well sourced as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: I wouldn't call her “very” notable. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. The results of other AfDs does not apply here. Neither does deletion rationales for other articles AfDs. BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa simply responded to the statement Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable, which is evidently not true. Keivan.fTalk 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is User:TompaDompa's special AfD collections! He shown his collections at every monarchy related AfD shows. 🤣 VocalIndia (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I don’t even understand what that sentence means, but I suggest you stop targeting and judging people who disagree with you. Keivan.fTalk 13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I'm no fan of royalty. Some people are and will read or write about it. I see no particular reason to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussions (
WP:NPA
)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment. In 2014 this entry was already nominated. It badly failed even before the princess even had as much as a name!!! It is a total waste of community resources to nominate this article again! Please, nominate only when there is a chance of success. Nominator, you're not only NOT improving WP yourself, you also keep everyone else from improving our encyclopedia! gidonb (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly am I keeping everyone from improving the encyclopedia?? I haven't chained you to a bed! If you want to improve this article then go ahead and do it. Plus, multiple articles go through several deletion discussions, including the article about her sister which was deleted after being nominated twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination)). There are already users who support my point of view, so I suggest you don't speak on behalf of the community. Besides, the article hasn't changed much since 2014, with only two sections on her "birth" and "christening" and she was stripped off her HRH styles in 2019, which means that she will be keeping a low profile = no public service. Just like her siblings Nicolas and Adrienne, and her cousins Alexander, Gabriel and Julian. Keivan.fTalk 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKE! VocalIndia (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Let’s try this again Keivan. Results on other articles AfDs has no baring on this AfD. Neither does deletion rationales for other articles like the ones you are mentioning. There is a clear Keep consensus as of today for this article. BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me make it clear then BabbaQ. This is a deletion discussion. People present their cases and points here to get a consensus. As a result, other articles about people with similar status can be used to demonstrate a specific point. Besides, this is not a voting contest. You have to make argument in favor or against the article based on our policies. Arguments such as “she’s notable” or “she’s in line to the throne” are not sufficient and the closing admin will not consider them valid. Keivan.fTalk 12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.f, you're wasting your own time and everyone else's. You could have used this time productively by improving articles, as could everyone else in this discussion. There are many articles that need attention. Instead, you and others waste time with frivolous AfDs and arguments. In the interest of improving Wikipedia, this needs to be pointed out! Please WITHDRAW NOW and stop arguing with everyone about something that will not happen as it has no base in our policy and guidelines! gidonb (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Please stop dictating to everyone else what they should be doing. I have been on this project since 10 years ago and have created and improved dozens of articles so I don’t need any advice on this matter. As a matter of fact, I have been carrying on with my contributions in the past days just like everyone else so I don’t really understand what you mean by wasting your own time and everyone else's. This is a deletion discussion! No one is forcing anyone to leave a comment here or participate. This article that you are trying to keep has no place for improvement otherwise it wouldn’t have been nominated. If you’re so interested in keeping it, then why don’t you go ahead and improve it yourself, instead of ordering me to do so? Your argument that will not happen as it has no base in our policy and guidelines is also void because I and two other users have already demonstrated why it should be deleted based on our guidelines. You have no right to call other people’s arguments “frivolous“ because this is a community where free speech has been practiced for years and no one needs to shut their mouths just because their arguments don’t suit your narratives. You voted, and you stated your opinion and that will be respected. Now stop attacking me. Keivan.fTalk 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will be archiving this part because the whole thing has really gone off topic. Keivan.fTalk 16:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC from like 3 VI edits) Comment. I was unfortunately brought here by Keivan.f, otherwise I wouldn't have seen this discussion that I actually do have a VERY strong opinion on. If only we could watchlist nobility BLP AfDs without watchlisting all the BLP AfDs... An experienced admin should close this, with special attention to the policy arguments and discussion on what constitutes GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, SergeWoodzing and Surtsicna made numerous edits to the article before the AfD (with Surtsicna voting delete and Serge voting keep in the previous AfD seven years ago), so at least their !votes should still be considered. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it seems it's ok for me to !vote given my extensive prior involvement in nobility AfDs (including two currently ongoing), I'll go ahead an add my opinion. On top of what the other delete !voters argue (run-of-the-mill coverage,
    WP:NOTINHERITED, general consensus to delete articles on minor children of notable people, the fact that this is a child living a private life) I'd also point out that BLPs require high-quality independent sources -- which are largely missing from this article. 12/25 refs are to the royal family website (primary), 3 are to public records/archive databases (primary, shouldn't even be in the article...), 1 is to the Swedish constitution (no mention of Leonore), 3 are to "special interest" tabloid-esque sites (Hello! and Royal Central) discussing her birth/birthday/citizenship, a further 2 are newspaper birth announcements, 3 are newspapers revealing her name (2 are the exact same source), and 1 addresses the Swedish king removing some grandkids from the house. So, exactly the same trivial coverage we see for any celebrity's kids and which we regularly disregard when considering notability for standalone articles (e.g. North West, the Jolie-Pitts, all of them having waaaaaaay more publicity). JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Additional note @BabbaQ: Only a few editors who received the message actually joined the conversation, such as SergeWoodzing (who voted keep on the old discussion for this page and is a contributor to the article so per our policies he can participate in this discussion). On the other hand neither Phil Bridger, Surtsicna, TompaDomp nor Pontificalibus have been invited by me to this discussion and they all questioned the very existence of this article. And as I said earlier it is totally okay based on our policies to ask for the opinions of 1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. If you feel there might be other experienced editors who might help with getting a consensus please don’t hesitate and inform them as well. Keivan.fTalk 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note 2 Just noticed that Davidgoodheart invited Dimadick to participate in this AfD. It’s totally fine in my opinion to invite experienced editors, but since some users preferred to make it known who has been invited by me to the discussion I thought it’d be better to mention this as well. Keivan.fTalk 07:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told twice about
WP:BLUDGEON [2] [3]. Cool down Keivan. BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Some users here decided to weaponize
WP:CANVASS against me. I have the right to respond back to those accusations. On the other hand, I’m done with this discussion. It bothers me to see people talking based on feelings rather than following policies. But at this point I don’t even care. I’m out. Keivan.fTalk 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Off topic (
WP:NOTFORUM
)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't care if this AfD was kept or deleted! But it is not fair! Shameless!!! VocalIndia (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: I warn you to watch your words before making any further accusations or personal attacks, all of which have literally zero basis. And don’t you even dare to say that you don’t care about this AfD’s outcome cause so far all I have seen from you is intervening in the process with baseless allegations and meaningless comments. Keivan.fTalk 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article has 24 sources, 12 of which are from the Swedish Royal Court website. That's not independent coverage. The other sources only cover Madeleine giving birth, which counts towards the mother's notability rather than the child's. In short, no in-depth coverage of the child herself exists other than some
    WP:ROUTINE stuff on the web. Keivan.fTalk 07:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keivan, you know I like you, but you have already been told twice before in this discussion about
WP:BLUDGEON. [4] [5] Perhaps it is time to take that advice to heart. It does not look good. BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Truth be told, I'm slightly offended that on the one hand you're suggesting -- repeatedly, even -- to Keivan that he ought to follow my advice, while on the other suggesting above that my opinion (among others) be disregarded. If my POV is good on the one hand, it should be good on the other. Ravenswing 09:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not your opinion that was questioned. It was the fact that you was canvassed to come here. But please, continue disrupting the AfD with nonsense. I’m out. BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like you too BabbaQ, and I assume that you are making this suggestion with good faith (though I strongly disagree with you on the issue of canvassing). In any case, as I said above I won’t be making comments on this discussion again. I’m officially out too. Keivan.fTalk 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.f I'm not sure if they'll respond now. –Cupper52Discuss! 16:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shiloh Jolie-Pitt has received many orders of magnitude more in-depth coverage than Leonore, yet we don't have an article on her or any of her siblings because it's been widely accepted for well over a decade that minor children of celebrities are not notable on their own if they are only covered in the context of their families. End. Of. Discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2021 (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/Princess_Leonore,_Duchess_of_Gotland_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1016453477"