Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Mary Carnegie Etherington


 * 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. There is a solid consensus that notability does not exist with a relationship to royality alone. The argument for deletion is much stronger. Yank sox  20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amelia Mary Carnegie Etherington
Articler was db-bio then prod'd someone un-prpoded so AfD'd, this child is unnotable has done nothing notable as is pretty far in the line of succesion. Just vanity tbh.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 13:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. I find nothing notable ouside claim to the throne. I would contend that the importance is a logarithmic function of the position-in-line. So by being 59th, she might as well be infinity as far as I care, unless she's a Norwegian princess as well, which she isn't. I was going to suggest merging to James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife, but realised there's precious little to merge. Ohconfucius 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on matters of the british monarchy, she has an important position - at number 60 in the progression is King Harald V of Norway! Not vanity, either - article was created by Francs2000. Being the granddaughter of the duke of fife also means we can expect the lesser press to care about her. LinaMishima 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete her entry in the article Line of succession to the British Throne gives all the information needed. -- E ivindt@c 21:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Usually I vote to keep royalty articles, but this girl is just too obscure and not really even royal. -- Necrothesp 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as being fifty-ninth in line to the throne and no other claims to fame is the acme of non-notability. Yes, Harald V appears in the press, but not because he's sixtieth in line to the UK/Canadian/et al throne. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Astrotrain 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote; a keep with no supporting justification can and should be ignored by the closing admin. Verifiability and reliable sources are policies, WP:BIO is a guideline, keep with no rationale is nothing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK then- how about being in the line of succession to the British throne is notable. Astrotrain 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL - there are thousands in line of succession. BlueValour 23:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fenton Mad Jack 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete no obvious notability being 59th in line for the British throne doesn't seem automatically notable unless it has generated news coverage but none in mentioned or linked from the article. Eluchil404 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - but what has she actually done? Nothing here. 59th to the throne? - unless the revolution happens she may as well be 59,000th or 5th for that matter. Chances are nil. BlueValour 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.