Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland

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. Essentially, those advocating deletion produced stronger arguments, including WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:LOWPROFILE Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the recently closed Princess Adrienne nomination, which sums up to the following:

The subject is a preschool child who has yet to do anything more noteworthy than being born, thus falling under WP:BLP1E.
The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC because there is no significant coverage, nor can there realistically be any. What the reliable sources have covered is his birth, a single event that should be covered in the biographies of his parents.
That a child is related to public figures is not a reason for a standalone article about the child, as explained by the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline. Everything there is to say about Alexander, i.e. his name and date of birth, is stated in the articles about his parents and that should suffice.
Aside from his birth, the 4-year-old "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". This again ties in with WP:BLP1E. The likelihood is due to his removal from the royal house and the announcement that he will not perform royal duties as an adult.[1]
Since there is nothing to say about the child other than that he was born and that he is related to some people, the article functions merely as a genealogical entry. Yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database dump, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Different cases. Alexander is fifth in line for the throne. Still royal, stillpart of succession. Notability isnt temporary. WP:GNG applies. And yes, Alexander is still part of the succession to the throne, and notability inherited in when it comes to royals are notable. Any other argument is POV. BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The announcement that he will not have a public role as a relation of the monarch has not affected his notability. There has never been notability as defined by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As seen in several recent deletion discussion involving minor royals, the consensus is that mere birth announcements do not constitute significant coverage. There is also no community-wide consensus that children of royalty have inherent notability. Surtsicna (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the fact that there is no community-wide consensus that children of royalty have inherent notability, I would point specifically to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau, all which resulted in deletion. Mind you that not all of these are minors – two of the three Belgian princesses were adults when their respective articles were nominated for deletion. Being royalty/part of the line of succession to the throne is not in itself a sufficient condition for a stand-alone article to be appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a 4-year-old who has never done anything of substance. Birth announcements do not infer notability. We make articles based on actions, not potential future ones. In his case the future also does not look bright, but the present never presented an actual state of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you base this assumptions on what guidelines?BabbaQ (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BabbaQ. --Richiepip (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father, Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland. There is not enough to say about this person yet to warrant having a separate article. If, later in life, he does things that bring him more significant coverage, even if just for being a socialite, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beingin line for the throne of the Royal throne of a country within the inner circle of the royal family is notable. Sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always seen these delete voters at many AfD discussion for royalty articles. I think the vote brigading is here . Surtsicna and his members (mostly with Johnpacklambert and TompaDompa) are ever active on royalty article and want to delete articles with his delete voters army. It is not fair and bullying by force, IMO. Thanks 🙂🙂🙂 Cape Diamond MM (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To a parent article. Also I personally think these articles are Weak keeps however the name is a plausible search term I don't know why people don't realise that. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BabbaQ. These nominations are getting ridiculous. How exactly is this benefiting the encyclopaedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of articles on children who have only received routine coverage for their births to public figures contributes to the reputation of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia and underlines that it is not a directory of genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Necrothesp. I assume you are refering to WP:GNG when questioning what benefits the project.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You actually, seriously believe that having articles on grandchildren of reigning monarchs undermines Wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopaedia?! How about great-grandchildren of ruling monarchs, like the children of Princes William and Harry? Can't say a great deal about them either, but any serious encyclopaedia would cover them. Presumably, not being from an English-speaking country, the Swedish royal family is an easy target for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I believe. I wrote what I believe. That a child's relationship to a public figure is not a reason for a standalone article about the child is not an opinion of mine but part of this project's notability guideline. That William's children have received more significant coverage than Carl Philip's may have to do with the fact that William will be king of 16 (or so) countries while Carl Philip will not be king of any, but the reason is not important. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen has a number of grandchildren who are never going to be children of a monarch. They all have articles. The coverage of them and of William's children is only routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make that case, I encourage you to propose those articles for deletion too. You are describing exactly what WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is about. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point, you see. I realise that notability is often not only defined by rigid rules, but by a sense that some topics just are notable and of value to an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discreetly shunning the policies and guidelines established by community-wide consensus is one thing, but openly referring to a "sense that some topics just are notable" has me aghast. At least it's clear the discussion is futile. Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am continually aghast at the inability of some editors to see beyond "the rules" and use their discretion. But there you go... -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, purely genealogical article.Smeat75 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Swedish Court do on a regular basis publish new photos of these young princes/dukes, so they are not kept away from public attention, even though they are (small) children. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this boy fails WP:BLP1E, as he has only received SIGCOV for being born, and the article in its current state fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater@ 19:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a toddler, ffs! WP:NOTINHERITED. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nom covered this very well. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Being in some distant spot in line for a throne that they will never occupy is not even remotely notable. Its a stretch beyond reason to even think this is a WP:BLP1E and arguments about "what might happen in the future" are WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable children in royal families. "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." WP:AFDFORMAT. The arguments in favor of keeping this article are all based on feelings and personal opinions. The nominator has clearly shown how this article does not meet article guidelines and policies.
Comment The WP:LOWPROFILE argument atleast sounds wrong because his baptism was broadcast in national TV not only in Sweden but in neighbouring countries as well. Toddlers can rarely be public figures, but this certainly would be one of those cases. --Pudeo (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOWPROFILE is about seeking attention, not getting attention. Surely you are not suggesting that his baptism as an infant was a case of him seeking attention? TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Though WP:LOWPROFILE is a supplemental page to the WP:BLP1E section of the BLP policy, whereas WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE are different sections and seemingly cover the thing from a different angle. The latter two only approach it from 'coverage in reliable sources'. --Pudeo (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.