Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August Brooksbank


 * 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 redirect to Princess Eugenie. For now. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

August Brooksbank

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've attempted to redirect this however it's been contested. I have no doubt this person is notable however there isn't enough for a standalone article. This is a 13 day old infant and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability. also as a matter of respect and basic decency, it seems wildly inappropriate to have such an article on a 13 day old child CUPIDICAE💕  14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to his mother's article at Princess Eugenie. As the subject is an infant, there is nothing to say about him that can't be covered just as well in the article about his mother. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above reasoning + the fact that the infant is days old, untitled, etc. If Brooksbank eventually meets independent notability, a page can easily be created for the then.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect – The likely intent of his parents is for him to avoid undue public attention by eschewing any public role. Thus, notable accomplishments reported on by the media are unlikely, especially in the near term. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Princess Eugenie as he is a viable search term. This is article is WP:BLP1E (the event being his birth). Also consider WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE as he is an infant and currently untitled. TJMSmith (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Princess Eugenie. Few babies born to royal families are notable purely for existing unless they are next in line for a crown. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect As per all above redirect to Princess Eugenie. Hulatam (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. A babe-in-arms is not a notable figure, no matter the parents. This article will one day have reason to exist as a stand-alone piece. Now is not that time. WP:RECENTISM seems in play here: there really is no rush to create a page. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * R with possibilities per arguments above. — The Great Redirector 11:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - I fully support the arguments made above. He may one day merit an article, but at the moment coverage on his mother's article is sufficient. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Princess Eugenie. He might be notable but there's not anything about it him that cannot be covered on his mother's article at this point. As he grows up, if he ends up living a public life like his cousins Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall then we can restore this page as a separate article. Keivan.f  Talk 04:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Princess Eugenie for the same reasons as everyone above. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (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.