Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince George of Cambridge


 * 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 snow keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am sure many will say keep, but from a completely objective standpoint this is a non-notable 6 month old baby from a non-notable family whom society has just so happened to have been conditioned into believing are in some way different from "the rest of us". Since he currently holds no constitutional office, and there is a chance that Britain will have become a Republic by the time his turn comes around (it's just a matter of time) I would vote delete. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is notable unless sources tell us they are. This infant hasn't done anything to earn his notability, true, but one could argue neither has Justin Bieber. We kept this article when the subject was a fetus without name or title. I'm sure we'll keep it now. Jonathunder (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Wikipedia policy, the subject is notable since it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The nominator's "completely objective standpoint" is in fact a completely subjective standpoint as it ignores Wikipedia criteria. Helen  Online  06:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Obviously passes WP:GNG, and the nomination appears to be based on the nominator's opinion of who should be notable than on any part of Wikipedia editing policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep According to the Wikipedia policy this person is notable. --Noel baran (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given above by "Keepers". Qexigator (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. No valid reason for nomination given and the subject passes WP:GNG by a long way, as do the rest of his family. The nomination appears to be based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, using the phrases "non-notable family" and "become a Republic" makes this nomination appear to be based upon the politics of the nominator, rather than the content or notability of the subject.Martin 4 5 1  09:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  09:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  09:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Third in line to the British throne. Filer's comment about a non-notable family cannot be taken seriously. Iselilja (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note previous AfD is here Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Martin 4 5 1  09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is an excellent example of why WP:NOTINHERITED is utter bollocks and shouldn't be quoted as WP:POLICY when it's WP:NOTPOLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Will one day be head of state of one of the world's major countries. And censure this POV-pushing nominator. Things like this have no place on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. The nominator's rationale is amusingly ridiculous, though. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per WP:NPOV given the obvious reasons stated by others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think we can automatically assume this child will one day become Head of State. Potentially every child alive in Britain today might grow up to become President of the United Kingdom. Constitutional systems do change, especially arbitrary hereditary elitist ones, and giving coverage to this infant just adds fuel to the fire and makes his eventual succession a more likely self-fulfilling prophecy. In this example the subject is not currently aware of his own "notability" and indeed may only become aware of it by reading his wikipedia entry, which kind of defeats the purpose of notability before inclusion. I would keep him out of the Encyclopedia at least until he is of age to begin carrying out official royal engagements Flaming Ferrari (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The above discloses a muddled lack of logic and reason. Neither "we" nor members of the royal family, the government or the general public automatically assume this child will one day become Head of State; the possibility that every child alive in Britain today might grow up to become President of the United Kingdom is impossible under the current constitution and would be irrelevant, even if a prospect of a change in the constitution were under discussion in parliament or actually provided for by statute; the monarchy has endured from the 11th century, from England to the union with Scotland and later with Ireland to become the UK, whether or not npov could accept letting it be characterised in a banal cliche' such as arbitrary hereditary elitist, while other regimes such as of France, Germany, Italy, and most other countries, have been and gone in the period after the UK Act of Settlement; the remark that the subject is not currently aware of his own "notability"  has no relevance whatever. Notability such as this is not dependent on some prospective change in a country's constitution, whether conjectural (as here) or about to happen by due process of law. The UK monarchy as such is notable, its manner of constitutional succession is notable, the immediate line of succession is notable, and that certainly includes the third in line, irrespective of age. Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight, you basically don't think he should have an article because you personally don't believe (or don't like to believe) that a monarchy that has survived over 1,000 years will continue to survive another two or three generations and think that giving him an article goes against your own republican views and strengthens the monarchist cause? That, quite frankly, is one of the most ridiculous examples of POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia! While you're at it, maybe you would like to nominate for deletion the articles on every single member of a royal family who has not actually been head of state? Or every single first lady or other spouse or child of an elected head of state? We've got articles on thousands of them. Why? Because they're newsworthy and therefore notable. And if you can't see the difference between someone who might grow up to be elected to be a head of state and someone who is born to be head of state and who, barring disasters or an unbelievably unlikely change in the constitution of the United Kingdom, undoubtedly will be, then, well, words fail me... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, have you maybe noticed the irony of having a "President of the United Kingdom"? ;) -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: the subject has received massive coverage, and far passes the notability guidelines. Mat  ty  .  007  16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Worst. Nomination. EVER.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:21, 27 January 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.