Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (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. The "delete" arguments are stronger. I have to discount the opinions assuming that nobility are automatically notable, because nothing in our guidelines says so, and it's also not our usual practice (see also WP:OUTCOMES). This leaves us with the question of whether her media coverage confers notability. The "delete" side has argued that the coverage is not substantial enough for WP:GNG, and these arguments have not been rebutted by the "keep" side.  Sandstein  07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

As it was discussed a few months ago in the deletion discussions about her siblings (Princess Adrienne and Prince Nicolas) and cousins (Prince Alexander and Prince Gabriel), the subject of this article does not appear to be notable either. Aside from the fact that she's a child and the article could potentially fail WP:BLP1E, the topic itself fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. First, because there's no significant coverage of her in the news, unlike some other prominent royal children such as her aunt, Crown Princess Victoria's children. Second, she was stripped off her HRH style about a year and a half ago, which means that she will 'probably' be keeping a low profile (WP:LOWPROFILE) throughout her life and she will never be a public figure unlike her mother Princess Madeleine. The article should at best be redirected to the appropriate section on Madeleine's article, just like the ones for her siblings. Keivan.f Talk 07:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Eight in line for the throne of Sweden. Good sourcing. Extensive coverage of this the first child Princess Madeleine. AfD results of other articles has no baring on this article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How is she notable per WP:GNG? Where is the independent coverage of the subject? The only notable event covered about her is her birth (WP:ONEEVENT) which can be easily incorporated into the article about her mother. Being the first child of Madeleine also doesn't make her eligible for a special treatment. At best she has the same level of notability as her siblings. Being in line to the throne is not a valid reason to keep a stand-alone article on individuals. I can name dozens of people who are titled prince/ss and are among the first individuals in line to the throne yet we do not have an article on them, because notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) and requires independent coverage by secondary sources. Keivan.f  Talk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability exists purely on the fact that she is in line for the Swedish throne, a line that only consists of eleven people. (Of course applies to her siblings and cousins as well). --Marbe166 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for notability, and the discussions that took place about the articles on her siblings and cousins show that the community also thinks the same way. As an example, Princess Astrid of Belgium and Prince Laurent of Belgium's children are well ahead in line to the throne, but none of them have independent articles here, because they fail the general notability criteria despite being princes/sses and in line to the throne. Keivan.f  Talk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per the result of the first nomination seven years ago and actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys have to make up your mind about other AfDs having a bearing on this one or not. Nevertheless, I should mention that two AfDs were opened for her sister Adrienne as well, with the first one resulting in keep and the second one resulting in delete. So any outcome is possible. The statement actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG is also wrong. I have already provided an example from Belgium in my previous comment. Other examples would be Infanta Cristina of Spain's children or Princess Märtha Louise of Norway's children, who are also in line to the throne, yet no stand-alone article exists for them, with most of them being deleted or redirected. Keivan.f  Talk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is media coverage about her. For example even last month she was featured in People magazine. See https://people.com/royals/princess-leonore-sweden-birthday-miami-beach/ The article is dated Feb 22, 2021. Here also coverage in the Town & Country big circulation magazine https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a26446219/princess-leonore-birthday-portrait-2019/ Also a number of articles in RoyalCentral website Here's just two https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/sweden/swedens-princess-leonore-turns-6-137933/ https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/sweden/princess-leonore-turns-7-with-beachside-photos-156101/ werldwayd (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All I see there is WP:ROUTINE with no in-depth coverage of the individual with actual biographic details. Even Angelina Jolie and Beyoncé's children get coverage like this once in a while. Of course those children are not in line to the throne of a country, but as I said earlier that itself is not a reason for notability either. Other examples: Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau, 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. Keivan.f  Talk 17:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Keivan.f  Talk 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Keivan.f  Talk 21:34, 28 March 2021 (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). 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) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Already covered at the mother's article: Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. No automatic notability from being in line to a throne. If being eleventh in line to the Swedish throne was such a notable thing, then there would be plenty of sources to satisfy WP:BIO, but there aren't. Pontificalibus 13:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Changing my !vote to Strong Keep per Cupper52s good notes of previous AfD result for this article that established notability as well. Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Eight in line for the throne of Sweden. Good sourcing. Extensive coverage of this the first child Princess Madeleine. AfD results of other articles has no baring on this article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You say an old AfD on this article established notability, and then you ignore the results of other AfDs about similar articles on which the whole community voted. You either take AfDs into consideration or you don't. We cannot only cherry-pick the ones that support our narrative. I should also mention that two AfDs were opened for her sister Adrienne as well, with the first one resulting in keep and the second one resulting in delete. So any outcome is possible. Also per WP:GNG, she is actually not notable. No independent coverage about her exists other than some WP:ROUTINE stuff. The only notable event covered about her is her birth (WP:ONEEVENT) which as I said earlier can be easily incorporated into the article about her mother. Also FYI, at this point she is ninth in line to the throne. She was fifth at birth, and she has been pushed down to the ninth position in only 7 years, so being in line doesn't mean anything. As years pass by, she'll go even further down. Cupper52's statement that actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG is also inaccurate as I gave about 20 examples of such children, none of whom meet our notability criteria. Clear example of WP:LOWPROFILE. Keivan.f  Talk 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I personally agree with the points you're making, but I think those points have been made by now. You're heading into WP:BLUDGEON territory. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. I sometimes get carried away. But since BabbaQ restated his points and changed his vote again, I thought maybe I should restate my points as well one last time to wrap it up. It's up to other users now. Keivan.f  Talk 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, very notable person, and the article is well sourced as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call her “very” notable. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 18:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable. !!! The article sufficiently sourced and compliant with GNG. Why people are using AFD as a weapon ????? VocalIndia (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Community WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with your assertion that Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable. 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. This was also noted in the closing comments of Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (I have to discount "keep" arguments based on inherent notability, because there's no community consensus about that for nobility and 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, respectively). TompaDompa (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note. The results of other AfDs does not apply here. Neither does deletion rationales for other articles AfDs. BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa simply responded to the statement Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable, which is evidently not true. Keivan.f  Talk 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is User:TompaDompa's special AfD collections! He shown his collections at every monarchy related AfD shows. 🤣 VocalIndia (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I don’t even understand what that sentence means, but I suggest you stop targeting and judging people who disagree with you. Keivan.f  Talk 13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Personally, I'm no fan of royalty. Some people are and will read or write about it. I see no particular reason to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would you like to set forth a valid ground, there?   Ravenswing   22:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are valid articles linked above that count toward the WP:GNG. These are then argued with. Unfortunately this has become routine at AfD discussion. As I pointed out below: huge waste of time! Further to this point: please argue with others, not with me. As I wrote here: I'm no fan of royalty. Even so, by my analysis there is sufficient coverage for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why your vote should be immune to discussion, especially when you didn't actually advance a valid ground one way or another. That being said, what particular sources do you feel give substantial coverage to the subject, as the GNG and BLP requires?   Ravenswing   07:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he’s referring to the sources listed by User:Werldwayd, all of which are WP:ROUTINE. Keivan.f  Talk 13:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to worry about who speaks louder, has the last word on attacking sources, canvasses, bludgeones, and creates a hostile environment. I stated my opinion after carefully weighing the sources and follow WP rules. Whoever closes this will look at all threads, and will decide whatever they decide. It's all good with me. This AfD already looks messier by the day. I wish everyone good luck and am not going to get involved beyond what I already did! gidonb (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. In 2014 this entry was already nominated. It badly failed even before the princess even had as much as a name!!! It is a total waste of community resources to nominate this article again! Please, nominate only when there is a chance of success. Nominator, you're not only NOT improving WP yourself, you also keep everyone else from improving our encyclopedia! gidonb (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I keeping everyone from improving the encyclopedia?? I haven't chained you to a bed! If you want to improve this article then go ahead and do it. Plus, multiple articles go through several deletion discussions, including the article about her sister which was deleted after being nominated twice (see Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination)). There are already users who support my point of view, so I suggest you don't speak on behalf of the community. Besides, the article hasn't changed much since 2014, with only two sections on her "birth" and "christening" and she was stripped off her HRH styles in 2019, which means that she will be keeping a low profile = no public service. Just like her siblings Nicolas and Adrienne, and her cousins Alexander, Gabriel and Julian. Keivan.f  Talk 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKE! VocalIndia (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let’s try this again Keivan. Results on other articles AfDs has no baring on this AfD. Neither does deletion rationales for other articles like the ones you are mentioning. There is a clear Keep consensus as of today for this article. BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me make it clear then BabbaQ. This is a deletion discussion. People present their cases and points here to get a consensus. As a result, other articles about people with similar status can be used to demonstrate a specific point. Besides, this is not a voting contest. You have to make argument in favor or against the article based on our policies. Arguments such as “she’s notable” or “she’s in line to the throne” are not sufficient and the closing admin will not consider them valid. Keivan.f  Talk 12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keivan.f, you're wasting your own time and everyone else's. You could have used this time productively by improving articles, as could everyone else in this discussion. There are many articles that need attention. Instead, you and others waste time with frivolous AfDs and arguments. In the interest of improving Wikipedia, this needs to be pointed out! Please WITHDRAW NOW and stop arguing with everyone about something that will not happen as it has no base in our policy and guidelines! gidonb (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop dictating to everyone else what they should be doing. I have been on this project since 10 years ago and have created and improved dozens of articles so I don’t need any advice on this matter. As a matter of fact, I have been carrying on with my contributions in the past days just like everyone else so I don’t really understand what you mean by wasting your own time and everyone else's. This is a deletion discussion! No one is forcing anyone to leave a comment here or participate. This article that you are trying to keep has no place for improvement otherwise it wouldn’t have been nominated. If you’re so interested in keeping it, then why don’t you go ahead and improve it yourself, instead of ordering me to do so? Your argument that will not happen as it has no base in our policy and guidelines is also void because I and two other users have already demonstrated why it should be deleted based on our guidelines. You have no right to call other people’s arguments “frivolous“ because this is a community where free speech has been practiced for years and no one needs to shut their mouths just because their arguments don’t suit your narratives. You voted, and you stated your opinion and that will be respected. Now stop attacking me. Keivan.f  Talk 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will be archiving this part because the whole thing has really gone off topic. Keivan.f  Talk 16:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Merely being in line to a throne does not indicate encyclopedic notability as defined on Wikipedia. This has been confirmed in AFD discussions regarding her cousins, who rank higher than her in the line. Those articles were thus deleted. This argument is also not valid per WP:INVALIDBIO. This child is a minor whose parents have stated that she will be raised as a private person. Wikipedia has no business covering her independently from her parents. Reputable sources cited in the article prove routine coverage of what is basically her mother's life; gossip magazines, on the other hand, hardly prove notability. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe there are other reasons for notability, but, given the state of modern medicine and the fact that Royals no longer lead armies into hand-to-hand battle, it is very unlikely that this person will ever succeed to the throne, so there is no inherent, WP:POLITICIAN-style notability here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete: Notwithstanding whatever Wikipedia guidelines and policies there may or may not be in cases for or against sibling equality, guidelines & policies (on that subject) about which I absolutely could not care less, it is unfathomable to me how this article could have survived the deletion of the articles on her brother and her sister. Not even if the great Emperor Ivor Widefathom himself rose from his logistically challenged barrow or boat grave and started giving out lethal Keep! orders could this be made fathomable to me. Are we really (really) to play such appalling mind games with living children? Uh, they (living children) use Wikipedia, and these three live in a place where English is language #1. Nothing less than shameful, that's what this inequality is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Let's knock down the ducks in a row. First off, being in line for a throne (never mind far down the list) is not a valid part of any notability criterion on Wikipedia, and contrary to the unsupported opinion of some Keep voters -- no one arguing for the notability of cute blond royal toddlers are battling for the notability of obscure tribal monarchs in Nigeria, say -- there is zero consensus to the contrary. Nor does the garbage decision of an AfD seven years ago (complete with such rationales as "she is in line to the succession to the throne," "Princess Leonore now has a name and an official Swedish noble title," "Madeleine's daughter will receive a title" and the like) enjoin us from revisiting the subject. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not 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 small child?" I answer, "You're right. There isn't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article."   Ravenswing    22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment and Note to admin Recent delete votes are come from User:Keivan.f's vote request . See WP:CANVASS. He attracted users who had nothing to do with this AfD and who were voted 'delete' at similar AfDs. Why ppl are using vote as a weapon ? What is a shame? VocalIndia (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment and additional note to admin Your attempts at keeping this article are beyond whatever I have seen so far on any deletion discussions. FYI, it would be considered wp:CANVASS only if I invited people who voted delete in the previous discussions. Also it is totally acceptable to invite 1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. As an example, SergeWoodzing voted keep in the previous discussion on this page yet I decided to ask for his insight; and he decided on his own to vote ‘delete’ this time. I didn’t ask him to vote in a particular way. Also I didn’t invite Surtsicna, Phil Bridger, TompaDomp or Pontificalibus to this discussion either, not to mention that I asked for a few people’s ‘insights’ on their talk pages, not their ‘votes’. So next time get your facts straight before making a fuss. Keivan.f  Talk 05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: (shrugs) I've participated in over a thousand AfDs, seven unrelated ones within the past week alone. Demonstrably, Keivan.f didn't just bring in those who voted to Delete in previous related AfDs, so the canvassing charge is baseless on the face of it. But that being said, we all know -- of course -- that a closing admin doesn't rule on headcount, but on reviewing the strength of the arguments presented. I am quite comfortable with any editor's informed opinion being included in that review.   Ravenswing    07:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (EC from like 3 VI edits) Comment. I was unfortunately brought here by Keivan.f, otherwise I wouldn't have seen this discussion that I actually do have a VERY strong opinion on. If only we could watchlist nobility BLP AfDs without watchlisting all the BLP AfDs... An experienced admin should close this, with special attention to the policy arguments and discussion on what constitutes GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, SergeWoodzing and Surtsicna made numerous edits to the article before the AfD (with Surtsicna voting delete and Serge voting keep in the previous AfD seven years ago), so at least their !votes should still be considered. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Since it seems it's ok for me to !vote given my extensive prior involvement in nobility AfDs (including two currently ongoing), I'll go ahead an add my opinion. On top of what the other delete !voters argue (run-of-the-mill coverage, WP:NOTINHERITED, general consensus to delete articles on minor children of notable people, the fact that this is a child living a private life) I'd also point out that BLPs require high-quality independent sources -- which are largely missing from this article. 12/25 refs are to the royal family website (primary), 3 are to public records/archive databases (primary, shouldn't even be in the article...), 1 is to the Swedish constitution (no mention of Leonore), 3 are to "special interest" tabloid-esque sites (Hello! and Royal Central) discussing her birth/birthday/citizenship, a further 2 are newspaper birth announcements, 3 are newspapers revealing her name (2 are the exact same source), and 1 addresses the Swedish king removing some grandkids from the house. So, exactly the same trivial coverage we see for any celebrity's kids and which we regularly disregard when considering notability for standalone articles (e.g. North West, the Jolie-Pitts, all of them having waaaaaaay more publicity). JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - Several editors has received this message (all !voting Delete so far) to join this AfD by the nominator. BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional note Only a few editors who received the message actually joined the conversation, such as SergeWoodzing (who voted keep on the old discussion for this page and is a contributor to the article so per our policies he can participate in this discussion). On the other hand neither Phil Bridger, Surtsicna, TompaDomp nor Pontificalibus have been invited by me to this discussion and they all questioned the very existence of this article. And as I said earlier it is totally okay based on our policies to ask for the opinions of 1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. If you feel there might be other experienced editors who might help with getting a consensus please don’t hesitate and inform them as well.  Keivan.f  Talk 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional note 2 Just noticed that Davidgoodheart invited Dimadick to participate in this AfD. It’s totally fine in my opinion to invite experienced editors, but since some users preferred to make it known who has been invited by me to the discussion I thought it’d be better to mention this as well. Keivan.f  Talk 07:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been told twice about WP:BLUDGEON  . Cool down Keivan. BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some users here decided to weaponize WP:CANVASS against me. I have the right to respond back to those accusations. On the other hand, I’m done with this discussion. It bothers me to see people talking based on feelings rather than following policies. But at this point I don’t even care. I’m out. Keivan.f  Talk 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't care if this AfD was kept or deleted! But it is not fair! Shameless!!! VocalIndia (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I warn you to watch your words before making any further accusations or personal attacks, all of which have literally zero basis. And don’t you even dare to say that you don’t care about this AfD’s outcome cause so far all I have seen from you is intervening in the process with baseless allegations and meaningless comments. Keivan.f  Talk 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: The sources in the article indicate that she has already received press coverage. That is enough to establish notability, regardless of whether she ranks high or low on a succession list. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note The article has 24 sources, 12 of which are from the Swedish Royal Court website. That's not independent coverage. The other sources only cover Madeleine giving birth, which counts towards the mother's notability rather than the child's. In short, no in-depth coverage of the child herself exists other than some WP:ROUTINE stuff on the web. Keivan.f  Talk 07:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keivan, you know I like you, but you have already been told twice before in this discussion about WP:BLUDGEON.  Perhaps it is time to take that advice to heart. It does not look good. BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I'm slightly offended that on the one hand you're suggesting -- repeatedly, even -- to Keivan that he ought to follow my advice, while on the other suggesting above that my opinion (among others) be disregarded. If my POV is good on the one hand, it should be good on the other.   Ravenswing   09:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not your opinion that was questioned. It was the fact that you was canvassed to come here. But please, continue disrupting the AfD with nonsense. I’m out. BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like you too BabbaQ, and I assume that you are making this suggestion with good faith (though I strongly disagree with you on the issue of canvassing). In any case, as I said above I won’t be making comments on this discussion again. I’m officially out too. Keivan.f  Talk 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if they'll respond now. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 16:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Shiloh Jolie-Pitt has received many orders of magnitude more in-depth coverage than Leonore, yet we don't have an article on her or any of her siblings because it's been widely accepted for well over a decade that minor children of celebrities are not notable on their own if they are only covered in the context of their families. End. Of. Discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I made my previous, slightly sitting on the fence, edit without looking into this much, but now see that this article is about a seven-year-old child whose parents want her to be brought up as a private citizen. Of course we shouldn't have an article about her. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Her parents want to raise her as a private citizen, we should respect that wish. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 6 April 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.