Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Rose Gilman


 * 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lady Rose Gilman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person in the line of succession to the British throne. Has famous relations but struggles to have a good reason to have an article on her own merits and I'm not so sure that being an art assistant in films is that notable. This article is mainly about who she is related to and a minor wedding. Thanks. Re5x (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. the sentence about her on her Dad's page is sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a junior member of the world's most renowned reining royal family, a great-granddaughter in the legitimate male-line of George V of the United Kingdom. Her marriage required the Royal Assent, making her a member of a very small class of persons, notable for proximity to the Crown in the Line of succession to the British throne. Events significant in her life are reported in the mainstream media. FactStraight (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment She is indeed a great-granddaughter of a monarch but that fact can be mentioned on her father's article. Just because she needed approval for her marriage does not warrant a whole biography on her as it is already can be seen on the Royal Marriages Act 1772 article. Please list these notable events which have garnered nobility wherein it was about her and not events where she happened to be a guest or received a passing mention because of her famous relations. Events notable to her personally and not in the greater scheme of things do not really count (mostly as tabloid-ish filler)... Wikipedia is not a genealogical website and being far in the line of succession does not automatically confer notability. Can you establish her notability by her own right? All I ask is to look at her as her own person... --Re5x (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Editor FIN (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America1000 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No claim to notability.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the article does not give evidence of notability beyond her inherited status.Atlantic306 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 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.