Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Parker Bowles


 * 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. Closed at 04:58, 18 April 2019‎; adding forgotten signature. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Emma Parker Bowles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication of notability. The only reason the article exists is because her father's brother's ex-wife is the Queen's son's second wife. Surtsicna (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I knew this name sounded familiar... oh well. Being an extended family member of a royal doesn’t mean inherited notability. No indication of it either. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh, so she's the niece of the future king's wife. That Don't Impress Me Much (nor does she meet GNG or N, and most of the sources are the expected tabloid pablum. Even if she works for those purveyors on the auto beat, I get the feeling it was merely paraphrasing press releases for those companies as a 'hey it's that person' type of personality, and hardly any kind of investigative journalism).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * She is not even Camilla's niece anymore. The relationship was through Camilla's first marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Even less impressive then.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 14:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: while the article has almost no sources and is very poorly written, a quick google search shows that she has been written about extensively in the press . -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The vast majority of sources are tabloid padlum, outright unfiltered PR for her skiing reality show, and 'who is she let's write a summary of her life written by a fourth-grader' stories rather than anything that seriously talks about the subject. Google News is a good first step to searching for notability, but it's also a good indicator of how non-notable a subject can be, as has been shown here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominatiom. Nothing can be traced out there to justify claims of independent and sufficient Wikinotability except for tabloid puffery about members of the royal family. Which is all well and good for tabloids, history books, or brochures but Wikipedia is nothing of the sort. Royal succession is a matter of inheritance; Wikipedia notability is not. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2019 (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.