Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lopes (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   no consensus. There are a number of weak arguments here, those on the "keep" side (of the "other articles exist" and "closely related to a famous person" variety) have been duly called out in the discussion. But there are fallacies on the "delete" side as well, some examples: WP:NOTINHERITED, which is a section of an essay (not a policy), means relation to a clearly notable person is insufficient to establish notability. On the other hand it does not mean that relation to a notable person invalidates the notability derived from coverage otherwise. It is less clear whether coverage that is caused by such a relation is sufficient or not. Andrew Davidson has pointed out the coverage in BBC and Newsweek, an argument that has merit. The fact that there has also been "gossipy trash magazine" coverage as pointed out by Lankiveil does not invalidate whatever good sources may be there.
 * "Just because someone has received coverage does not automatically make them notable enough to warrant an article" did not consider why the coverage was insufficient in this case. "A does not imply B. A. Therefore not B" is not logically sound.
 * " If she were to be the next Queen or something of importance I'd understand .... but she's not" is denying the antecedent (If Lopes is the next queen, then she is notable. Lopes is not the next queen. Therefore Lopes is not notable).

On balance, I see no consensus for deletion here and I don't think either side has produced strong enough arguments to call this a "keep" or "delete" based on any policy either. Merging may still be discussed on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Laura Lopes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not real independant notability, only claim to notability is being stepdaughter of the Prince of Wales. TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As ridiculous as I personally find Brittish Royalty, Their obsession in general and the coverage Ms. Lopes seems to indicate notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So in effect you are saying that in the case of the British Royal Family WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply?. There is nothing of interest to say about this person, she merely merits a mention in the article on her mother.TheLongTone (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats not even kind of what I am saying. She clearly has coverage from WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources that prove her notability. I would not consider her important enough to write about but those sources clearly do and as they meet all wikipedia standards for for reliabilty and editoral oversight they matter.. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But the sources do not establish her notability, since they all seem to be primarily articles about someone else. There really does not seem to be any substantial, in depth coverage of her.TheLongTone (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - If she were to be the next Queen or something of importance I'd understand .... but she's not. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Why is this article being nominated for deletion? Her article is created because of her relation to a famous person (her mother) and also her relation to the astor family. there is no need to delete this article...thousands have been created on Wikipedia and they stay, this should stay. Also if you delete this article because she wont be queen, then you have to delete, lets say the Duchess of Cambridge's sister, Pippa and brother James article too, their sister will be queen not them.(Monkelese (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Her article is created because of her relation to a famous person ": see WP:NOTINHERITED. For the others, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. She attracts little coverage, and what there is is solely because of who her mother is now married to.TheLongTone (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly states that "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house." --Soman (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say by those rules that Camilla is notable but the daughter is not.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you will also be deleting the duchess of cambridges sister and brother's page too? they seem to be in the same page as Camilla's daughter. i see no reason for this article to be deleted, many articles including articles of dead people do not receive coverage at all, but they remain. (Monkelese (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Duchess of Cambridge is a member of the current Royal Family, while her siblings are not, so I'd consider other notability criteria. Different countries have different rules on membership in a Royal house; the [UK's Royal Family] seems like the most analogous group to Soman's quote about a "public position that is notable in its own right". While it includes the subject's mother, it does not include the subject. Agyle (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to one (or both) of her parents. Notability is not inherited and she herself has done nothing notable.  I am not sure about Pippa Middleton, but she may just about manage to be notable; but that would be near the margin.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or merge/redirect to a parent. Subject doesn't meet any of the person-specific notability criteria of WP:Notability (people), and I didn't find independent sources of significant coverage about the subject required by WP:GNG. While there has been a lot of minor coverage of the subject spanning more than a decade, none of it is what I'd call in-depth or significan. I think none I read was about her specifically; most independent coverage was about the subject's wedding to Harry Lopes, followed by brief articles on the birth of their children. Other than that, it's mostly one-sentence passing mentions, photo captions, or brief coverage in an article about her family. (This Hallifax Courier article does have six brief one-/two-sentence paragraphs on the subject).


 * While it's a little borderline, another thing I think should be considered is whether this is really a public figure or not, fair game for intruding into their privacy. One reason for lack of in-depth coverage is because, as people have pointed out, she hasn't done anything notable. She seems like a pretty normal person, and doesn't seem to have gone out of her way to attract attention; she just has famous family members. While WP:BLP's "presumption in favor of privacy" is directed toward limiting the type of coverage given to a subject, I think in the spirit of that, the question of the article's existence should also give this subject the presumption of privacy for an otherwise borderline notability question. As a point of comparison, consider her press-grabbing brother, who has many articles just about him, and is clearly a public figure. ––Agyle (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | converse _ 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete notability is not inherited, and as "keeper" Monkelese said above: created because of her relation to a famous person (her mother) and also her relation to the astor family. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination seems to be based upon the mistaken idea that notability is a matter of the subject being important or worthy. This is false as, per WP:GNG, inclusion here is based upon coverage in sources.  The subject has been covered in detail by reasonable sources such as Newsweek and the BBC and that's that.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree those sources provide significant enough coverage to establish notability, I think that's at least the right thing to disagree about, and it does seem that the nominator and some respondents may be using a generic meaning of notable, rather than Wikipedia's criteria. Agyle (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because someone has received coverage does not automatically make them notable enough to warrant an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, there is coverage, but it is largely of the gossipy trash magazine variety. I'm sure she's a nice person, but nobody would care if she weren't related to royalty and she's not a major enough figure in the monarchy that I think we can throw away WP:NOTINHERITED.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:36, 7 July 2014 (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.