Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ju-ae


 * 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   merge to  Ri Sol-ju. I have gone with the majority here that suggests there is consensus that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. A discussion of which article should be the merge target can follow. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Kim Ju-ae

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge/redirect to Kim Jong-un for wp:toosoon and wp:blp. See Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae suggesting this proposal &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  17:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per nom; could be speedy close and start discussion on talkpage (or just start merging) considering consensus at other AfD discussion. Ansh666 18:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect; Notability is not inherited. This child is notable for no other reason than being the child of Kim Jong un. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prince_George_of_Cambridge's notability is entirely inherited yet we have an article so there are clearly exceptions. This child is a de facto princess given the fact her father inherited his position and no change to that system is expected in the near term.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prince George passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (from WP:Notability (people)). This one doesn't - her existence is only rumoured, and WP:NOTINHERITED kicks in here because she isn't discussed in any way apart from her parents. Ansh666 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the person's existence is, in fact, doubtful (something I would acknowledge as possible but dispute as not a reasonable doubt) then that rationale should be cited as opposed to WP:NOTINHERITED which makes exceptions for hereditary monarchies of which North Korea is more or less a form. I have not, in fact, "voted" here but believe that WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP are overused in deletion discussions.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to mother Ri Sol-ju. While still a baby I think it would make more sense to expand on it there, at least until its known if the baby exist and is a heir, still a rumor only. Lot of other rumors concerning Ri Sol-ju. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to the mother's article, per Green Cardamom. Jonathunder (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Other stuff exists is not a good argument to have an article on a child we know nothing about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the mother, make some mention of them in her article. Notability is not inherited. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As pointed out by Brian Dell, Kim Ju-ae is the only known child of Kim Jong-un and since power is passed on to the children in North Korea, this would make the child the de facto heir apparent unless a male child is perhaps born one day. Referencing to the agreed redirect in Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae is not a good argument since the other page was only one sentence at that time. Michael5046 (talk)
 * Weak keep with poor sourcing. Redirecting to either Ri Sol-ju or Kim Jong-un doesn't tackle the content fork issue. The subject's notability is only likely to increase over time, so perhaps the most practical thing to do is retain the article. Deletion/redirection would probably be followed by creating/reverting by others as more sources become available. -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2013 (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.