Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Also nominating:
 * Ragnhild Lorentzen

For some reason there are two articles on the same person. Zero indication of notability. Notability is not inherited, and being a distant relative of Queen Elizabeth II does not mean you need an article. Reywas92 Talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The second half of this Guardian article is an argument for notability, and so is the coverage of her as part-owner of a two restaurants in California from this search. Sometimes people related to notable people are notable in their own right. - Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That article means nothing. The first half is just satirizing how far down the line of succession they had to go to get to her. The co-ownership also means nothing. Owning one of the hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the world and getting a few press mentions is not notability. Non-notable + non-notable =/= Notable. Reywas92 Talk 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not remotely close. Marrying a monarch makes you notable.  Being the spouse of a President makes you notable.  Being the commoner child of an obscure princess doesn't.  Lorentzen is not herself legally noble, and she fulfills no part of WP:BIO.  This is extreme inclusionism run rampant.    RGTraynor  06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak Keep per Edward's citation of the name under which more references exist. I'm still unsold on her notability, but there are certainly enough in-depth sources to pass the GNG.    RGTraynor  08:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but calling Princess Ragnhild fru Lorentzen an "obscure" princess is bit of a stretch. Obscure in England maybe, but there is a world beyond the United Kingdom as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable as a restaurant owner, not notable as a noblewoman, and the intersection of those sets is also not specifically notable. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Great-great granddaughter of Victoria and #66 in line to be Queen? Notability is not inherited. The one article is satire, listing the rejections of interview requests until the author gets down to #66 who says she was unaware that was her number. (I suppose I am way, way, way farther down the list). Edison (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Niece of the current king of Norway. People with similar family relationships, for example the nieces of the current crown prince, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn, and Emma Tallulah Behn, are all considered notable enough to be in paper encyclopedias such as Store norske leksikon, and being the niece of the king is a claim to notability of about equal value, even though her home in the US makes her less covered in Norwegian press than the nieces of Haakon. In addition to the Guardian article, Ragnhild has been covered by Aftenposten . Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting that you mention those three nieces.  What distinguishes them is that they are all in close line of succession to the Norwegian throne.  As a commoner, Lorentzen is not.  PS: Interesting twice that you mention that those three nieces are in a Norwegian encyclopedia ... but if Lorentzen was in it herself, you'd have mentioned it, yes?  Sounds like that particular source doesn't consider her notable either.    RGTraynor  18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, Ragnhild Lorentzen does not have an article (though she is mentioned in the bio of her mother). It is also true that Maud Angelica and the others are in relative close succession to the throne, but a lot of things would need to go wrong if that were to happen. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and work on getting better sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Nobility may be inherited, but notability is not.Yilloslime T C  22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. There seems to be little significant coverage. -- Pink Bull  04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's an SFGate story in 1996 about the brewery going online.  I think you all are looking for sources wrong;  and  are both this person, if I'm reading it right.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, my biggest reason for Keep is that the Guardian article is so good, much better than this Wikipedia page, and that I'm glad that the deletionists are around to point me to the good articles to read. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Being the niece of the King is not notable (See Notability (people)). She is not notable as a restaurateur. Googling "Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen," "Raggi Lorentzen," and "Raggi Long" produce less than 200 hits, but most of those 200 hits are just family trees and lists of royal succession. I'm not notable, and there are more hits for me than for her. OCNative (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (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.