Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lopes (3rd 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Laura Lopes
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Outside of being a distant relative to British nobility, nothing I see suggests notability (and WP:NOTINHERITED). The 'no consensus' in 2008 and 20014 was based on weak arguments like "her article is created because of her relation to a famous person"... as our standards keep rising, this seems less and less sufficient. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes. I already suggested in the context of Tom Parker-Bowles that we should think about her. I can't see any reason to keep the article.  Athel cb (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, she's only famous because the has famous relatives, but she is famous. Her celebrity attracts significant coverage in reliable sources such as Cosmopolitan and South China Morning Post. pburka (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think. Appears notable, has significant independent coverage:
 * 1) https://www.mylondon.news/news/royal-family-prince-william-prince-23929578
 * Rather a strange example for your case. The title says it all: "Royal Family: Prince William and Prince Harry's stepsister who most people won't have even heard of". Right on.  Athel cb (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quantum entanglement is a notable topic, most people don't know about it. Notability is not the same as the majority of any given population knowing about it. This is not how the Wikipedia notability guidelines are written. And please don't put your answers in the middle of my replies, please put them at the end, you are going to make this confusing for people to follow who said what. CT55555 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a39437283/laura-parker-bowles-lopes/
 * 2) https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/who-is-william-and-harrys-mysterious-stepsister-laura-lopes/
 * 3) https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3171273/who-are-prince-harry-and-williams-step-siblings-meet
 * 4) More of a passing mention in this one https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-61464217
 * 5) May be tabloid? https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/20220524141026/duchess-camilla-daughter-laura-lopes-future-homes/
 * 6) https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a32389684/who-is-laura-lopes/ CT55555 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thought that there was a rule about notability not being inherited. Would anyone have heard of Laura Lopes if she had not had a famous mother? Come to that, would anyone have heard of her mother if she had not been the Prince of Wales's lover. So Laura Lopes's notability is inherited from her mother, who inherited it from the Prince of Wales -- a double inheritance, therefore. Athel cb (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth also is only famous and the Queen because her father was King. We should delete that article too? No. I think the rule means that you can't assume notability due to inheritance, but it doesn't rule out notability if it is proven. CT55555 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "rule" (actually an essay) says that someone isn't notable solely because they're related to a famous person: if your brother is Jeff Bezos you don't get a page just because your brother is rich. It doesn't mean that someone can't be famous through their relatives; just that it's not automatic. We don't care why reliable sources write about someone; just that they do. pburka (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:BIO guideline that links to the essay: WP:INVALIDBIO includes, That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. The WP:AADD essay links to WP:INVALIDBIO and includes: The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be plenty of coverage. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established by sources provided by pburka and CT55555 Mujinga (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2022 (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.