Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

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. Tone 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (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)

Like the awful Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, etc., another example of a ridiculously premature article on someone who does not yet exist. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & wait for the birth as precedent Prince Louis of Cambridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (2nd nomination), & standard practice WP:TOOSOON. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)... since there's not a list for foetuses[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above Jibran1998 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As evidence that the result is not always delete, see AfD for "Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", the result was keep. The child will arguably get more media coverage than Charlotte or Louis because they are the first for Meghan and Harry, and therefore be notable enough for an article before birth. More information can be added to the article right now (about surnames, health risks of going to Tonga and Fiji from Zika virus, etc.) and it will be likely that since this is a more significant event than Louis or Charlotte (media wise) - more information will be released by the Royal Family officially before birth to stave off rumours, or more information will come to light otherwise.MarkiPoli (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• SALT Last this type of article happened it went through four AfD's recreations. Govvy (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculously too soon.--Stelmaris (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Too much detail. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Wikipedia:FUTURE. Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is not a child and possibly may never be. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's ridiculous to have a whole article about a fetus. Unless the fetus has horns or something. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wait until the birth at the very earliest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as some have pointed out, the birth of unborn children is not gauranteed. The article seems to suggest the pregnancy is only 2-4 months along. I do not think even the moment of birth is a notable point. True, this person will be the first potential heir to the crown of Britain of African-American descent, but seeing it that way involves a flawed view of racial and ethnic history. If he/she lives into young adulthood he/she will almost certainly be notable, but while childhood deaths are much less common now than they were 150 years ago, living is not gauranteed. This article has no reason to exist at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThe baby is not even born and thus does not satisfyWP:GNG. Vinodbasker (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON and potentially salt, although it's likely that an article will be warranted in the future. At the moment we have a pregnancy announcement and little else in terms of content; until the child is born, I don't think a standalone article is needed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Royalwatchers may be disappointed but this is way WP:TOOSOON, any significant and notable prebirth info, if any (sorry, but what maternity clothes she wears is not!:)), can be added to the duchess article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I couldn't be bothered voting, but I note the nom's reason is "a ridiculously premature article on someone who does not yet exist." Does that mean we can now delete all articles about those who can never be shown to have existed (God, Superman, Bugs Bunny, and so on ad infinitum) ? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, and salt; wait til the birth. Spleodrach (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While I agree that this is WAYYY too soon, Prince George of Cambridge's page was made A MONTH before his birth. So, instead of waiting until the baby is actually born, we might want to wait until ~a few weeks before the baby is born. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TOOSOON. Wait until the child is born. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:TOOSOON, and merge content into Meghan, Duchess of Sussex: as I understand it, under English law, an unborn fetus is not generally held to be a legal person until the moment of birth. As said above, the information in this article can be put into Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, whose pregnancy this is, until the child is born. At that point, WP:GNG will apply, as usual. -- The Anome (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TOOSOON: the child hasn't even been born yet. This article was created too soon, and Wikipedia does not have a time limit. Let's not rush. CookieMonster755✉ 01:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I forgot, and SALT it. CookieMonster755✉ 01:20, 21 October 2018 (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.