Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland


 * 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 redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. A majority is in favor of deletion, redirection or merging because of privacy or notability concerns, but a sizable minority is for keeping the article either per GNG or because they consider the position of prince and ninth in line to the throne of Sweden to be inherently notable. In my view, the "keep" arguments are not compelling in the light of our policies, guidelines and practices: we have always rejected inherited notability, including for nobility and the like, and unlike for politicians we have no community-accepted guidelines presuming the notability of people with inherited titles. The GNG arguments are more convincing, but in my view the WP:BLP1E arguments put forth by the "delete" side are stronger because rather than in a guideline they are based in an important policy, and have not been rebutted. This leads me to conclude that we have consensus to not keep the article, but taking into consideration the substantial opposition to deletion and several merger proposals I think the most consensual outcome is redirection so that any relevant content can still be merged. The definitive merge or redirect target remains open for discussion.  Sandstein  06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nicolas is the five-year-old grandson of the king of Sweden, the son of the king's younger daughter. Last year's announcement that he is not a member of the royal house of Sweden and that he will not carry out royal duties as an adult makes me wonder why we have an article about this boy. His mother has stated that her children will "format their own lives as private persons". Wikipedia should take note and tone down the exposure of the child. The article is mostly a list of relatives, titles, and heraldry anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per privacy concerns, lack of continuing (and likely future) coverage, and ease of merging what little info is in this article into his mother's. JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  Devokewater  @  11:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete  per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. While he's no longer formally a member of the royal house, Wikipedia has a historic perspective as well as a contemporary one, and he has been. More importantly, he remains the duke of Ångermanland (and is still ninth line of succession to the Swedish throne). While I might be mistaken, I sincerely doubt there will be a lack of future coverage. His titles have generally not been rescinded. /Julle (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Being ninth or ninety-ninth in the line of succession is all the same: he will never inherit. Most of his titles have not been rescinded but titles are not why we have articles on people. It is the societal or constitutional role the titles entail that makes people notable, and in Nicolas's case, this sort of role in Sweden has been very clearly thrown out of the window. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. If a subject has been notable, notability doesn't disappear. (It could of course be argued that there was insufficient notability and that the article shouldn't have been created from the beginning, but that doesn't seem to be the argument.) I agree that the constitutional role is no longer relevant. That doesn't mean the remaining titles have no societal role. That is, however, not the main argument for keeping the article. /Julle (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do contend that the article should not have been created at all. The coverage of newborns is actually coverage of their parents and of an important event in the life of the notable parent. X AE A-XII, the newborn son of musician Grimes and entrepreneur Elon Musk, has received much more worldwide media coverage than Nicolas, and yet we understand that the coverage of his birth and naming does not call for a baby-biography. Neither does having an unusual name or a courtesy title. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG which is covered. Per good sourcing. Still in line for the throne though will not be officially a prince. Any privacy concerns needs to be more affirmed than a small mention and POV of the nominator. There is no reason for deletion at this point. And the Delete !votes above are Per Nom and vague.BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He also covers WP:SIGCOV. Which trumps POV.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - simply not notable on his own. Redirect to mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:I so far count three Delete !votes without a single argument or guideline for its point of view.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you ping the users for further clarification? I would rather not guess which three !votes you find unsatisfactory. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell for certain which !votes are deemed unsatisfactory but I am pinging Smeat75, Devokwater, and JoelleJay for clarification of their stance. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it wasn't enough to say "delete per nom." Is it better to say "I agree with everything Surtsicna and JoelleJay said? or should I repeat their reasons "small child, not notable, not going to carry out royal duties, private person, just being related to royalty is not enough for an article"? Is that better?Smeat75 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Does my citing "privacy" not count if I don't specifically link to WP:BLPPRIVACY? This child's coverage is mainly WP:BLPPRIMARY reports from the Swedish royal family's website, with the rest being WP:ROUTINE coverage that is either trivial or easily integrable into a relative's page. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete based on not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NRV and WP:BASIC. None of the references address the subject directly and in detail, all seem very WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any claim to notability would rest on his family and WP:NINI. The privacy concerns are valid for a 5yr old child.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. Prince Nicolas and his sister were mentioned in numerous sources when their style of Royal Highness was removed. They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. Due to the notability of their mother and grandfather, they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives. He also continues to hold the title Duke of Ångermanland and remains a Swedish prince. --Richiepip (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply Being in the media spotlight or famous is not a criterion for notability. per WP:BIO "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
 * This is far from certain "they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives" and is WP:CRYSTAL.
 * If the basis for their notability is "when their style of Royal Highness was removed" at best this makes them WP:1E, but since this was a non-notable event, I don't think it even qualifies for 1E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. In other words, they are not notable except for their relationship with someone who is – see WP:NOTINHERITED. TompaDompa (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:LOWPROFILE child for whom privacy is a serious concern, where the illusion of WP:Notability is purely due to familial ties (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). The title "Duke of Ångermanland" is purely nominal – a PR stunt, basically. See WP:INVALIDBIO: 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. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. TompaDompa (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Julle, BabbaQ and Richiepip. He is a living royal, direct descendant of a reigning monarch, in line to a throne of an existing monarchy. That is more than enough to meet notability requirements. --Marbe166 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it, though? All of that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO. TompaDompa (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or if necessary merge. This child is barely notable. We usually delete when we are unsure about child actors and crime victims. See also WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Prince Nicolas is neither a child actor nor a crime victim, he is a Prince of a reigning dynaty. --Richiepip (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ... the head of which has announced in no uncertain terms that he will do no princely stuff when he grows up, as did his mother. Are we to have an article about a toddler solely because he has an empty title? Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland per WP:BLP1E, as this person has only received SIGCOV for being born, and also taking into account that they are a minor. If kept, article should be renamed, as there has been an explicit preference not to use those titles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the idea that a five-year-old is notable just for having been born is absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what guideline? Or article content. A lot of drive-by !votes here based on no guideline. BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Including the majority of the five keep !votes. It seems to me, however, that John Pack Lambert is referring to WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SIGCOV. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: GNG requires ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". None of the refs meet this requirement. The article does not meet WP:GNG. GNG further states "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.". There are verifiable facts here, and it might be useful to mention in an article on a parent. Being born is not considered notable; if having your "titles" removed is notable, then they might barely meet WP:1E and the article should still be deleted. These are the guidelines.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll second what is mentioned above about this being a child whose parents intend to raise in privacy. If when the child becomes independent, something brings them to public attention then an article may have merit. Until then I think the parent's and family's intentions (and actions that back those up) to keep this child's life out of the public realm should be strongly taken into consideration and the community should choose to err (if it is one) on the side of the parent's wishes regarding the child's privacy.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen nothing reliably sourced about the intentions of the parents, only about the actions of her father & the fact that they have accepted the demotion of all 3 of their children without complaint. This boy is simply not notable on his own. That should suffice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep How on earth can one describe the coverage on a Monarch-heir as routine, that's a rather bizarre view. If anything, birth of royal members are more unique and modern news reporting will report such an event. This give credence to future notability which in turn will result in favour towards GNG. There are rather floored arguments in the delete camp in my opinion. WP:CRYSTAL aside, generally the media obsessed what happens to these type of people, events, where do they go to school, education, where does a royal member end up, working. If wikipedia survives another 10 years I am sure this article might be something more adapt and very different. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He is not an heir. He is not even the child of an heir. There is no expectation of "future notability" because there is no public role for him in the future. He is a preschool child. In another 10 years he will still be a minor with no expectation of any future public role. The media is just as obsessed with the children of Beyonce, Kanye, Barack Obama, David Beckham, Angelina Jolie, etc, but tabloid journalism is not significant coverage (WP:SBST). Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any member of a royal household is a lined heir, Govvy (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, and he is not a member of the royal household either. The king said so. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what the definition of a Royal House? Everyone in the Swedish royal family belong to a royal house, these royalties can be separate between different houses, Prince Nicolas will always be in one house or another which makeup the royalties of the Swedish line. This can't be changed. You can give up a line of succession, only the King or Queen can strip a house, but that is never done. I strongly suggest you do your homework and provide sources with your arguments. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "His Majesty The King has decided that the children of Their Royal Highnesses Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia, and the children of Her Royal Highness Princess Madeleine and Mr Christopher O’Neill will no longer be members of The Royal House." Here's your source. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ”Prince Nicolas and Princess Adrienne will continue to be members of The Royal Family.”. It is a matter of formality in their everyday life. They are still in line for the throne, though far a away in terms of number in succession. Govvy is right in his assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Being in the royal family without being in the royal house means they are just preschool-age relations of the monarch without any present or future royal role. And as WP:INVALIDBIO guideline states, simply being related to someone is not a reason for a standalone article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel the rescind of House of Bernadotte takes away notability? That doesn't stop a new named house to be put in place, or to join another house. The fact remains, Prince Nicolas is still a member of the royal family and still in succession to the Swedish throne regardless. Where is there a policy of duties stripped that one fails notability? Govvy (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Users have cited multiple policies and guidelines in support of the view that the coverage of a child's birth does not warrant an article about the child. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And again that depends on the child, like each person, every article should have its own assessment, I think you're overanalysing here, what are the key points, what sources are available, where are the sources coming from. I feel you have forgotten it all and throwing it out the window. I think there is merit towards a weak GNG pass and given some time, GNG will surely be established at some point, depends if you want to put the effort in to build something or put the effort in to dissolve something. Govvy (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Crystal balling does not make the boy notable and shouldn't. We are not supposed to have articles about people who are clearly not notable today. It's that simple, really. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many anti-royalty! So I dont want to say so much. A member of reigning monarch or royal family and ninth in the line of succession to the Swedish throne. Royalty are forever or auto notable. Notability is not based on their age! Hey delete voters from above, If you want to delete this article? To be fair_ Please delete this article first "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor". He is only 15 months old now. Please do not be biased! Ok? shame  on you. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Royalty are forever or auto notable. Notability is not based on their age! Well, the community WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with you there (see e.g. Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau). I would actually be in favour of deleting Archie Mountbatten-Windsor for the same reasons – no independent notability (WP:INVALIDBIO), but seeing as that page has been nominated for deletion twice, most recently last year, I suspect a third AfD nomination would be viewed as disruptive. TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said that Grand Duke and King are not same position!!!! Grand Duke is lower than King! Btw: I'm working for a long times for Royal Family articles. Some senior editors who were expert on Royal Family, no longer active on Wikipedia as of 2018. Your delete vote team are now active! That's why some deposed royal family related articles are deleted. (However, I'm support to delete for "member of the deposed royal family" but member of reigning monarch is different). WP:INVALIDBIO is not working on reigning Royal Family. I only noted and following on Bearian's standards for nobility. But it is not Wikipedia's rules. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're not happy with that one, see Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, and Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. Those are all in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, and Belgium has a King. TompaDompa (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect somewhere appropriate, or delete. Weird case: sure, lots of coverage of the fact that he was born, but there's nothing encyclopedic for us to say about it.  Hardly any biographical information because he's a young child not being promoted/exploited by his parents (unlike, say, some child actors).  So the article ends up as a genealogy database dump about a young child.  If the kid were royalty, I guess "he exists and will be king one day" would be a good reason to have such an article; but he's not, actually (per the nom and convincing comments in support of it).  So ultimately I find the nom + the reasoning put forward e.g. by TompaDompa to be convincing. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the only thing in the article that's actually about him seems to be his birth and I don't think that's enough to warrant an article. Even if he has a "notable" title. Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs. A grandson of a ruling king, ninth in succession to the throne, is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted yesterday: Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Adrienne,_Duchess_of_Blekinge_(2nd_nomination). So.  JBL (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrongly, of course. But the deletionist coterie are out in force at the moment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So when you say "always" you mean what exactly? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More "always": Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Nikola_of_Yugoslavia_(born_1958). --JBL (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you think because the coterie have managed to get another article deleted recently (and are clearly really, really proud of themselves for doing so, as though their actions have improved Wikipedia) that supersedes all previous results? No, I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that you enjoy making attacks on other editors more than honest discussion, but let me try again: can you please explain what you mean by "We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs" that is compatible with observable reality? Thanks in advance. --JBL (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't. I simply don't understand how deletionists' minds work or how they think their desire to delete benefits Wikipedia. I'm all for deleting rubbish, but not articles on what seem to me to be clearly notable topics. And I observe a little group of editors who seem to always vote delete, which, as someone who joined a long time ago to help create this encyclopaedia and has worked hard to do so ever since, mystifies me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, one last time: can you please explain what you mean by "We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs" that is compatible with observable reality? Thanks. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Prince George of Cambridge (Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Articles for deletion/Prince George of Cambridge), Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince Louis of Cambridge, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (Articles for deletion/Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex). All great-grandchildren of a reigning monarch who are thus far notable merely for existing. But no serious encyclopaedia would not cover them. The only difference is that the Swedish royal family do not come from an English-speaking country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I give up. Nice to know that your poor contributions to AfD go back years, though. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have been helping to build this great project for over sixteen years. Mostly adding, not deleting, I'm pleased to say. Although I have deleted plenty of rubbish and non-notable fancruft in my time. But, I'm happy to report, not articles that are clearly encyclopaedic. That I leave to others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hrm. IMHO, D&D goblinoid deities, D&D dragon types, minor Judge Dredd characters and the like (all which you've voted to keep at AfD) would strike the casual observer as non-notable fancruft, but I guess to some people "notability" and "encyclopedic" = "I like it."   Ravenswing     23:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing, that's because some people have a sense. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That the 5-year-old Nicolas is a grandson of a king and (still) somewhere down the line of succession are two sentences that are sufficiently covered in Succession to the Swedish throne and his parents' biographies. The two sentences do not call for a standalone article. Neither does relationship with a public figure; see WP:INVALIDBIO. Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes...same opinion with you! Ive kept many articles about members of monarchs since I writing on wiki. But this shitt are bullying by his delete voter group who are focusing to delete royalty articles on en-wiki. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just royalty. Anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * hay, WP:INVALIDBIO is not working on member of royal family! Don't jealous! Ok well, If you are brave, You can nominate for deletion to the articles of King Mindon's daughters with the reason of WP:INVALIDBIO. Ok let see and come on. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Very weird to see his sister's article deleted today, but this one kept. Could lead to an unfortunate discussion on sexism. Or do we think the Swedish Parliament is going to reverse itself & change the constitution back to where only boys were in line? Beats me! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Each article going through AfD are individually assessed. The POV about sexism has no place on Wikipedia.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Could lead to an unfortunate discussion on sexism" is reasonable speculation and doesn't appear to express a POV about anything, let alone an inappropriate POV. Maybe if you're going to chide people in this AfD you should target your energy at those directly attacking other commenters? --JBL (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: As in his sister's AfD, the nom hasn't advanced a valid deletion ground ("no foreseeable public role" is as much soothsaying as any other WP:CRYSTAL violation), but other voters have. Being in line for a throne is not, as I've found, a valid part of any notability criterion on Wikipedia.  Neither, despite some assertions above, is being the "duke of Angermanland," which the article itself admits is only titular. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources.  This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. There isn't.  Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." And that being said, holy heck, could the venomous rhetoric above slow down a bit?  Strange though it might seem to some, one does not need to be a member of a vicious secret society to apply notability standards to articles and find them lacking, even if the subjects are adorable little children.  Neither is there any evidence of anti-monarchical or anti-Swedish bias, although a couple of you are sure making a case for the converse.   Ravenswing      23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per User:Julle. Notability is not temporary, and the article is as much about the title as the child, who remains part of the royal family. (The sister's article should not have been deleted either). I agree BTW with Necrothesp's point that Wikipedia makes itself look stupid by perversely deleting articles which are bound to be looked for. Ingratis (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is saying that his notability has ceased. The general view is that having this article was never warranted. Nobody should be the subject of a Wikipedia article merely for being related to a public figure, especially not someone who is 5 (WP:INVALIDBIO). Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "General view"? surely shome over-statement! The other "general view" is that being the grandchild of a living and ruling monarch does = notability. But in any case, as has already been said, the title has notability. Ingratis (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the general view because it is enshrined in the project's notability guideline, thus obviously reflecting the consensus of the community. The topic of this article is not a title. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Duke of Ångermanland exists as a redirect to the relevant listing in Duchies in Sweden, which seems very reasonable to me. (Likewise, after the deletion of the article on the sister, Duchess of Blekinge continues to exist as such a redirect.) --JBL (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (No apology for using an "argument to avoid": some people ARE notable by virtue of their families, like it or not). Duchess of Blekinge, created by Surtsicna a few minutes ago, redirects to nothing at the moment! I note Duchies in Sweden, but the entries are very brief: there is more significant / encyclopaedic information about the dukedom of Ångermanland that should be kept (arms etc) in the article on Prince Nicolas. Since he is so far the only Duke of Ångermanland, the articles are pretty much the same, with a change of title, which is what I think is a suitable way forward.  Ingratis (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is very clear about nobody should be the subject of an article solely for being related to someone. WP:BASIC applies to everyone equally. Articles about titles are structured much more differently than biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To the point: does anyone contest that the Dukedom bzw Duchy of Ångermanland, as a royal dukedom and title, is notable? if it is, it merits an article, which allowing for the necessary differences (scarcely an insuperable obstacle) will use much of the content of the article on the Prince as the only title holder so far. Ingratis (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (Ditto the Dukedom of Blekinge - the recently-created but malformed redirect is I see now fixed). Ingratis (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I dispute that there is a need for a stand-alone article for the purely nominal title "Duke of Ångermanland", yes. All the relevant information can be kept at Duchies in Sweden, as is currently done. As far as I can tell the coat of arms you refer to is Nicolas' personal coat of arms, not any coat of arms belonging to the title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. As already said, a royal dukedom is notable enough for an article. As already said, the entries on Duchies in Sweden are very brief, only a few words, doubtless because they link through to more informative biographical articles: it is proposed here to delete the biographical article. As already said, Nicolas is the Duke of Ångermanland, so his personal arms are also those of the duke, as the two are the same.Ingratis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We've now reached the "crumpet" stage of the discussion - Speaker A: "Crumpets is wholesome, Sir!". Speaker B: "Crumpets is NOT wholesome, Sir!" and repeat ad inf.. I've no interest in adding to that.Ingratis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of princelings or anything else. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In the extremely unlikely circumstances that he ascends to the throne, we can review again. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. A tricky one here. The article satisfies WP:GNG but notability of this five year old child is entirely grounded on his being member of the royal family. Although many believe royal family members are by default notable. This is a 50-50 situation. Being an inclusionist, I am going for weak keep. Nomian (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not inherited. Someone who is sixth in succession at birth has no prospect of inheriting the throne. If and when this person does something as themselves that warrants significant coverage, then we can revisit. The insistence of some folks here that all royalty are notable simply doesn't wash. They're not. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect I am inclined to say WP:NOTINHERITED. 9th in line for the throne is not really notable. Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland or to Ångermanland. Wm335td (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2020 (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.