Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (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 delete. I have to discount "keep" arguments based on inherent notability, because there's no community consensus about that for nobility. The GNG-based "keep" arguments are stronger, but the "delete" majority's argument that we can't write an article about her because there's nothing more to write than "she was born" appears at least equally valid to me. There's no consensus for a redirection, but anybody is free to create (and then contest) a redirect.  Sandstein  06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Adrienne, aged 2, is the youngest child of the youngest child of the Swedish king. Her (and her siblings') status as "Royal Highness" and membership in the royal house have been rescinded because, as the Court said, she will not have a public role in Sweden. Her mother said that this would allow the children to "format their own lives as private persons". The family has also relocated to the US. Having an article about an infant, now toddler, was wrong from the start, but exposing her further on Wikipedia despite no foreseeable public role and her mother's clearly stated wish for privacy is simply unjustifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to mother's article: my first thought was that as a member, albeit 10th-in-line, of a current royal family she should have an article, but on reading the nomination more carefully, and her mother's sourced article, I agree that this "princess" should not have a Wikipedia article, as a very minor (in both senses) royal living the life of a private person. I think a redirect is still useful, to help enthusiastic royalists to identify "Princess Adrienne" and also to clarify that the article has been created, considered, and rejected - so "delete and redirect" rather than the more quickly reversible "change to a redirect". The unsourced statement about the Order of the Seraphim needs to be sourced and added to Royal_Order_of_the_Seraphim, along with any other post-2014 updates, as that section is apparently incomplete. Pam  D  09:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per nom Devokewater @  11:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, with a redirect to mom as well if necessary. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 5 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 Princess. 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. I also see that most of the Delete !votes has no rationale for their stance at all Per Nom does not cut it. BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She also covers WP:SIGCOV. Which trumps POV.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - simply not notable on her own. Redirect to mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:I so far count four Delete !votes without a single argument or guideline for its point of view. BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 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) 08:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my reasoning is that this article is sourced almost entirely to routine press releases about her birth, with the one other news item essentially stating there will be even less coverage of her in the future. BLPPRIVACY should be maintained, particularly for children. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 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. A 2yr old baby cannot be notable for anything they have done (usually not even dress themselves properly); any possible notability at this point would be from an event (unless its a pretty extraordinary life for a baby) and Wikipedia covers the event not the individual in these cases. As for the future, WP:CRYSTAL. there is no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT in the article.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. Princess Adrienne and her brother 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. Se also continues to hold the title Duchess of Blekinge and remains a Swedish princess. --Richiepip (talk) 03:31, 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.  // Timothy ::  talk  03:44, 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 "Duchess of Blekinge" 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) 14:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Julle, BabbaQ and Richiepip. She 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) 01:04, 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 needed merge, for the same reasons as I wrote about her brother. See WP:OUTCOMES, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 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 they only received SIGCOV for being born. Also, if the article is kept it should be renamed as there has been an explicit preference for not using those royal titles. Also, this person is a minor. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the notion that a three year old child is notable is absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on what guideline? Because she covers WP:GNG. A lot of drive by !votes here without any rationale based om guidelines and/or notability per sourcing etc.BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 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  19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Draft I fail to see why this should be deleted, it's a good start to an article which will probably be improved over time. The assumption that the article should be straight up deleted I find kind of absurd for an article of this nature. Royals are always going to be in the lime-light and GNG can be established easily from multiple sources. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It cannot be improved into anything encyclopedic for at least another 16 years because she is a 2-year-old whose parents intend to raise her in privacy on another continent. It is explicitly stated by the king and the parents that the children will not be in any lime-light. TimothyBlue has explained how this topic does not pass WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll second what is mentioned above about this being a 2-year-old 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  14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That they would like privacy is POV from the two editors above. WP:GNG trumps that and other POV or drive-by none rationale !votes further up on this AfD. Still in line for the throne. Still royal. Goovys rationale for Weak Keep is good.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Being in line for the throne or being "royal" does not constitute notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. TompaDompa (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not a guideline. And guidelines has been provided by several editors here for Keeping. BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By several you mean two out of five. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, but WP:INVALIDBIO is a guideline, and makes the same point. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding privacy, I have quoted the children's mother so it is quite factual. The term "POV" refers to something else but as far as I am concerned, you may call it that or clairvoyance or whatever. Also, not royal anymore: expressly removed from the royal house, stripped of the "Royal Highness" appellation, denied any public funding, and relieved of any future royal role. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply, are absolutely on point about this. In addition  assertion, "Still in line for the throne. Still royal." is completely false. They are not in line for the throne per  which states "in the future, will not be expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State." Being in line for the throne would clearly mean they might be "expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State" at some point in the future or even becoming the Head of State. This source also clearly states they are not members of the Royal House, but they are still members of the family. They are not royal, they are members of a royal family. There are plenty of examples of this happening in European royal families, including Harry and Megan (see ). They didn't cease to be members of a family; they did cease to be members of the royal house.   // Timothy ::  talk  14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TimothyBlue, the children are still in the line; see this. It has been announced by the riksmarskalk, however, that Princess Madeleine's children would lose succession rights if not brought up in Sweden from the age of six, and since the family moved to the US two years ago, their exclusion is very likely. But their still being somewhere in the line of succession is inconsequential because they will never inherit, and the monarchy has acknowledged that reality with last year's announcement that they would grow up as private citizens with no royal obligations or privileges. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments Just look at the evolution of articles relating to the children of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. If the editing follows the same pattern I don't see a problem with GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * William will be a monarch. Madeleine will not. One of William's children will be a monarch. None of Madeleine's will. They will not follow the same pattern. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles about royal toddlers function as placeholders for future notability, and in this case it has been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up. The article is now (and will remain, if kept) a mere genealogical entry, stating nothing more substantial than the subject's relationship to adults who actually are notable. Wikipedia, however, is not a directory of genealogical entries; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where, reliably sourced, has it "been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up"? I might have missed that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's here. The children "will not be expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State". Following this announcement, Madeleine wrote that the children would be private people. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where, reliably sourced, has it "been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up"? I'm only asking about that specific wording, nothing else. As far as I know, nobody anywhere has ever made that clear: "that the children will not be public figures when they grow up". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that the children will be private people is saying that they will not be public figures. Private people = not public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She said that they will be free to shape their own lives in their capacities of private people (som is a very tricky Swedish word). That rather obviously would include their right to become public figures, royal or not, if they so choose in the future, and it is not quite correct to foresee a future where they will not be public figures. The girl is not notable today. That's enough. All the other chatter just damages the deletion case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. We are reading it the same: they will inherit no public role in Sweden but there is nothing stopping them from, say, becoming America's Next Top Model. The point I am making is that keeping the articles as placeholders for future notability is senseless because no future notability is guaranteed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Lol really? She is tenth in the line of succession to the Swedish throne. very important thing !!!!! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the only noteworthy thing about this two-year-old is her place in the line of succession, the appropriate place for that information is Succession to the Swedish throne. TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A member of reigning monarch royal family. Royalty are forever notable. Not based on their age!  You have no power  here! Ok? So go away !! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. This is exactly the sort of attention to which one of the world's most frequented websites should not expose children. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Go and say at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor first! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Community WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with your implicit assertion that being royalty is sufficient for a stand-alone article to be appropriate. See the similar case of Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grand Duke is lower than King ! Not same .Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:59, 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) 05:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment 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) 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That article has been nominated for deletion twice, you know. The first time it was deleted, and the second time it was kept. TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article also has been nominated for deletion twice, you know. The first time it was speedy kept, and the second time is how going? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion : But what about x? WP:WAX. - hako9 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect somewhere appropriate, or delete. Weird case: sure, lots of coverage of the fact that she was born, but there's nothing encyclopedic for us to say about it.  Hardly any biographical information because she's a young child not being promoted/exploited by her 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 "she exists and will be queen one day" would be a good reason to have such an article; but she'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 or redirect I totally agree with the voter above this comment and the original nominator as to why this article should be deleted. Everything about this that might be notable is about a single event, that she was born and whatever line of succession she might have been is has been shot down. Plus, her family moved to America and wants to be left alone. So, this article shouldn't really be a thing. Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: 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. 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.  You can't.  Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article."   Ravenswing      04:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to father's article: There's no significant coverage for the child. Being born is not a significant event. - hako9 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.