Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor

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 No consensus. Discussions on whether the article should be merged or not can be taken up on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor

This girl is entirely not notable. The British line of succession is notable, but not all people in it are. Her article is almost entirely composed of information that belongs in other articles and very little of it is unique to her. She goes to a boarding school and is interested in drama? Well, that's fun, but not encyclopedic. Charles 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason, an overall lack of notability:

Delete and turn into a redirect to her father, as nominator. Charles 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to redirect it, what's the point of deleting it first? In fact, you didn't even have to bring it here for discussion. The talk page would have been OK. 152.3.247.38 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Royal obsessives will keep on reverting a redirect even if there is truly no point for keeping an article. Charles 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that was me. I must be a royal obsessive. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what is to stop another royalist from coming along next week, ignoring the deletion log, and recreating the article from scratch? I guess you could page-protect the redirect but then you have a request for unprotect every time the individuals are in the newspaper for anything, be it notable or trivial. If your goal is to stop "royal obsessives" it's not a battle worth fighting, and it will make you look like an obsessive deletionists. Not that there is anything wrong with being an obsessive deletionist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Haven't we been through all this before? 25th position in the line of succession is notable - it's not like she's 525th. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if we've been through it before, she is not notable. Where does it end? 26th? 27th? Really, this is ridiculous. Why is 25th notable? Please note that notability is not inherited and also that notable groups and lists can be composed of non-notable people. Association does not automatically create notability. Charles 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably until the line of succession goes far enough that the concensus is that the members are no longer notable. That sounds circular and tautological but it is true. there isn't (and shouldn't be) a hard line. People ARE notable for being royalty apart from any existential notability. You seem to be intent on deleting what you see as marginally notable royal figures, perhaps you might be happier just letting it slide? I don't mean that as an accusation or to suggest that you aren't acting in good faith. I just mean that you might be unhappy making the same justifications over and over for the 4-10th (or so) in line to a throne of some country. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear. I don't think you should just give up because people like me are around to say things contrary to what you believe. I just hope to convey the fact that your argument can just as easily be extended to absurdity as my argument. Meaning that if I accept that nobility does not confer notability and that lineage does not confer notability then I can remove articles about people who could conceivably be next in line for the crown (of, say, england). Let's look at it this way. If no office in the government of the united states were inherently notable aside from the presidency, then you could make the argument that an otherwise non-notable commerce secretary should not get an article for just being the commerce secretary. At that point, I could suggest that this policy extends to the vice-presidency. Then we find ourselves asking how the presidency itself is notable because no office whose holder stands to succeed to it seems to be notable. In some sense, this is the same as drawing the line from 10th to 527th.Protonk (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said Protonk I wish I had thought to explain it that way. By the way, in some administrations, the Vice President is about as non-notable a job as there is in Washington. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Near enough to be a matter of public interest/importance/notability.DGG (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING. So non-notable, vital details like a birthday have to be listed just because they exist? Charles 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and redirect to their father's article unless sufficient reliable sources for an article are found. Not the progeny of an heir apparent or heir presumptive of a head of state. Neither is even in the (reasonable) line of succession for the Duchy of Kent.--Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for both they both may be notable in England and thats what this is all about. Atyndall93 | talk 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May or are? Charles 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They are somewhat notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Charles 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with their father/mother's articles. While I firmly believe all grandchildren of a monarch are notable, and children of British HRH's (i.e. children of Dukes of Kent & Gloucester and Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra), I don't believe their children are noteworthy enough. A good section of their parents with dates/places of birth and any other known info would be better.--UpDown (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge had long reason but, database locked. Basic reasoning is that a) notability isn't meant to be inherited b)not enough coverage of the subject as an "individual". Make part of parents article or part of a minor royals article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is royalgeekery. "25th in line for succession is notable" ought to be their motto. Any job that's dependent on 24 persons dying suddenly isn't much of a job. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think you understand. This notability isn't based on a potential notability that may come through inheriting the throne. It's based on an inherent notability in being part of the royal family. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a likely descendant of Edward II. Where do you stop? --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both with George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews and redirect - while members of the British Royal family are inherently notable just for being who they are, these two are outside of the immediate public eye and have done nothing remarkable with their lives... yet. Other grandchildren of the Duke of Kent, such as the children of Lady Helen Taylor, do not have articles of their own so I don't see why these should be any different. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't the same as the status of the spouse or child of a politician or other celebrity. Simply being in the line of succession is notable in itself, even though details about her are limited. Without an article, there will be redlinks in any discussion of the line of succession. --Eastmain (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Red links can be removed, it's easy. In fact, I'll do it myself. What do you suggest about the other 1000+ people in line? Should I suggest you start writing articles on them all? Get on it then. The line of succession is notable, not everyone in it is. Charles 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm down. Every afd on this subject has you belitting people who hold a different view on the subject. Please try to keep it on an even keep and respect the fact that some of us have different opinions about the notability of royalty than you.Protonk (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take grievances that aren't directed directly at this discussion to my talk page. I maintain and will continue to maintain that there are huge, huge issues with the idea that royalty always equals notability. The comment above by me illustrates that. If you haven't anything to offer directly to the subject of royalty don't post it unless it is on my page. Charles 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for both: Reasonable places to draw the line are: Elizabeth II's descendants, who occupy the top 12 spots, her father's descendants, who occupy the top 18 spots, her grandfather's descendants, who occupy the top 55 spots, or her great-grandmother Queen Victoria's descendants, who occupy nearly the top 500 spots. 12 is a no-brainer, 18 will get very few arguments, 55 is debatable and considered only because this crown is so famous, 500 no way. Weak keep because article already exists and there is no compelling reason to delete this person, as her place in line for this very famous crown makes her marginally notable and that's enough. If this were a less-famous monarchy, such as maybe the one in Belgium or Saudi Arabia, I would draw the line higher, probably at either direct descendants of the reigning monarch or 10, whichever is longer, but no more than 20. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing which implies her notability or even supports it is her position in the line of succession and all the rest is filler, would this not best be served as an entirely notable section within the context of her father rather than as a "marginally notable" (I wouldn't give it that) standalone article? Most things have much better impact and relevancy as sections in related articles than as perpetually short, awkward and non-notable stubs. Charles 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, and it very well might be, then this would have been a proposed merger or if non-controversial, a WP:BOLD merge, rather than an AfD. An AfD removes content and edit history, a normal merger does not. I doubt I would object to a merger if no encyclopedic content were lost along the way. As for non-encyclopedic content within an article, if you find any, feel free to remove it, that goes for all articles and it goes without saying. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found that articles such as this that are merged, whether discussed or not, tend to be recreated in their previously existing form. Arguments are sometimes presented before but rarely after (if the merge is undone) I find Afd usually to be effective in reinforcing the point of a merger. It makes it clear that the article on its own is basically not viable. I am actually discussing such an article right now. Also, look forward to a reply from my talk page relatively soon on yours, I have just read it. Charles 05:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look to history to find consensus. If you look through Line of succession to the British throne you will see things peter out in the 20s. Looking only at people born in 1989 or later, everyone has an article up to position 26. Position 29 does not. After that, things get spotty, with articles at position 56 then some for the direct descendants of King Olav V of Norway in the 60s. I stopped checking at that point. Articles for adults follow a similar trend, with occasional adults having articles even well down the line if they were somehow notable in their own right or by virtue of some other relative or some position or title of nobility they held. This tells us that so far, it's the consensus of Wikipedia editors that the cut-off point for automatic nobility the British Crown line of succession is probably in the 20s, with some tolerance for articles for people lower down who can't stand on their own credentials. On the other hand, it could just be that editors are slowly working their way down the list and given time will have articles on all 1000+ entries. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just as an aside, no there is actually a trend towards not having articles on these people: back in November for instance the article for Columbus Taylor (see history) was merged with his mother's article (she being his link to the line of succession). In the future though, as the Queen's grandchildren grow up and have children of their own, these more distant individuals will only get further from the line of succession and their position as people who have articles here will only get more tentative - it's not as if they are directly related to the monarch, which is what would give them automatic notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure why you keep focusing on some definitive cut-off position in the line of succession, especially since that position is, shall we say, quite subject to change (per below). --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm saying that at any given point in time, for a given royal family, there will be some general consensus that people higher than X in line are clearly notable by virtue of birth, people lower than Y are clearly NOT notable MERELY by virtue of birth, but there will not be a consensus for people between X and Y. With the current British crown, X is somewhere at or below 9th place and Y is probably well above the 100th place. Between X and Y there is no consensus and we have contested AfDs. However, as you said, this will likely change over time. In 2028, even Y may be above 9th place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as with Roleplayer, UpDown, and others above. Their position in the line means someone might type them in to search for them, but their lack of notability in themselves means their father is the perfect place to add the little information about them needed ~ which, i might add, is less than is currently in the articles: Who cares or needs to know what her favourite subject is? Cheers, Lindsay 08:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the Chattos are redirects to their mother's article, and they're closer to the throne than these ladies are. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chattos have full articles, they were redirected without opposition in late March by Charles. The lack of opposition argues for a redirect-without-delete, but does not argue for a delete-then-create-redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Charles. Notability derives from an accident of birth. What a shame for this young lady. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (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.