Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuzulu Zulu

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuzulu Zulu (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)

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of independent notability. Nothing seem to be notable about him outside the fact that he's an expected successor to the current king Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu. We will probably consider an article when he finally succeeded Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Far be it from me to wonder about notability rules, but if the 3rd in line to the British throne is automatically notable, perhaps the 1st in line to another throne should be also. Otherwise I'm with Laurence Sterne on infants who "create works". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Full disclosure I created the article. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 8 months old, the fourth in line to the English throne has an article and she is notable only for that. The person is notable for being a crown prince. Being a crowned prince or princess makes one notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based argument? Can you point out where the policy says that " Being a crowned prince or princess makes one notable"? Prince and Princess don't get freebie article here on Wikipedia unless they meet our notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any evidence that WP:GNG or WP:BIO have or can be met. I can't find any news coverage, mention in books, or even WP:RS-acceptable websites that cover this person. He's mentioned in passing in a few places, but that doesn't grant notability. Neither does being a royal, regardless of country or distance from the throne. It is possible that he may be covered in other languages, but I don't know those languages and therefore can't try to find them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I guess we have to Delete then. Let's hope a few Nth-in-line babies get PRODded too, eh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing to indicate any independent notability and any sourced material relevant to his thin dynastic notability is already on his father's page. GraniteSand (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2016 (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.