Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Mountbatten (2nd nomination)


 * 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 deleted: G4. DrKay (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ella Mountbatten
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

article fails WP:GNG as notability isn't inherited. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. She does get significant celebrity coverage in the Daily Mail article that is referenced. If there are one or two other independent sources like that, this could be a keeper. But right now I'm leaning to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the Daily Mail article only references the subject as a debutante and inherently only as part of a larger family. As the nominator indicates, notability cannot be inherited for purposes of Wikipedia.--Rpclod (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Montbatten may at some point be notable, but right now she is just a 20-year-old from an aristocratic British family who did some undefined charity work on a trip to India. That people have even calculated the succession to the British throne down to the 644th person is laughably absurd. That the article says of this 20-year-old "she remains childless and unmarried" is just absurd. Mountbatten is not at this time notable, and there is no reason we should have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2016 (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.