Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lascelles (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sophie Lascelles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

68th in the line of succession to the British throne but no evidence of notability as a photographer. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. This is a case of WP:INVALIDBIO bullet point #1. Articles only mention her in passing as a decendant of Queen Victoria, and no significant covereage for her photography. I searched Google, JSTOR, NYT, ProQuest and Gale. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. She's closer to the throne than I am, but 68th is not a claim of notability. The current queen (and indeed the Prince of Wales) has enough descendants to mean that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone else would become head of state, and I see nothing else that could make the subject notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability as photographer or royal. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO.   scope_creep Talk  18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: If she was only 59th in line to the throne, it might be another matter . . . that is how far the succession to the British throne page goes - which may already be too far by half!Leutha (talk) 19:37, 10 September 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.