Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Charlotte 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Cambridge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

JeffUK (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep she's constantly on British front pages, even if not doing much, and will remain so for several decades. She's 4th in line to the throne of a large democratic country. As for "her parents have been largely successful in their attempts to keep her out of the public eye", this would be more convincing if her mother didn't keep taking photos of her and releasing them to the press. The article has had 8.5 million views since 2015. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "She's constantly on British front pages, even if not doing much" But isn't this mostly gossip and paparazzi shots? having her face on the front page does not mean significant coverage. JeffUK (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Their reason for covering her is inherited, but coverage is coverage and she gets it from respectable news sources every time she has a birthday, starts school, etc. That's personal notability, not simply inherited notability. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Her parents' desire to keep her and her siblings out of the public eye is great, but that doesn't circumvent the fact that, unlike her Wessex cousins, and even unlike her Sussex cousins, her notability will continue to grow as her grandfather, father and older brother ascend the throne. Her parents don't confer notability on her, but her status as a British princess does. You probably would've had a better argument if you'd chosen Lady Louise Windsor rather than the daughter of the future king of the United Kingdom. Piratesswoop (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree her notability may grow in the future, meriting an article when it has grown. And "her status as a British princess" is not notability, it's just a different way of saying 'Who her parents are', therefore invalid justification for a bio. JeffUK (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: clearly notable. And apart from all the routine coverage of her every public appearance, there's the fact that she's the first princess to be above a brother in the line of succession after the removal of male primogeniture rules. Pam  D  09:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very clearly notable. Fourth in line to the throne. Huge coverage. All senior members of the British royal family are very obviously notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG for having significant coverage in reliable sources. Also worth noting that they are 4th in line for the throne, I think that alone would make her pass GNG. Colin Bear  ( talk  - contributions) 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly has enough coverage to meet GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - She got enough coverage in the news. Her brothers have their own bios on Wikipedia. Also, she's the highest among females in the succession, who can't be passed over by a younger brother. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bad nomination. Obviously meet WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SNOW close. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, I was asking in good faith to see if there was any sort of consensus,  very clearly not!  Can I retract/close this myself or do we need to ask for someone? JeffUK (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - As nominee I'm withdrawing this. I'll remove the note from the article page to tidy it up, clearly no-one else is convinced of my logic!  I don't think there's any ongoing discussions etc. so I don't think this is inappropriate as per WP:WITHDRAW JeffUK (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove it next time, because the AFD message contains code that goes onto the talk page when the nomination is closed. Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2021 (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.