Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW as there is clearly no consensus to delete this. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex[edit]

[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)

Aside from the obvious - the fact that this baby is 0 days/weeks old and can claim no notability independent from that of his parents - it has been made quite clear that the child will not grow up in the spotlight, let alone sit on a throne. He is not a prince nor a Royal Highness, and the parents clearly intend to protect the child's privacy. The child's relationship with the media (and thus to sources from which we draw our content) has been made clear by the decision to have no hospital steps photocall and dozens of cameras around him. Any coverage comes from the coverage of Harry and Meghan and will remain so for many years to come.

Let's give this child as much freedom-from-Wikipedia as we give to the Queen's other untitled great-grandchildren. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This child is not untitled. He's a male-line great grandson of the Queen, and a grandson to the future King of the UK, which makes his position totally different from Peter Phillips or Zara Tindall's children. By the way, the birth of Peter and Zara's children was not covered in the news on a worldwide scale, while this child has already been mentioned by various sources. Keivan.f^Talk 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He will be Lord Name Windsor, not a prince. Being a male-line great-grandson of the Queen does not make him a prince, and being a "grandson to the future king" is simply reaching. Under absolute primogeniture, male line counts only for titles, and not even that in this case. And it is simply not true that the births of the Phillips children were not covered by the worldwide press. The birth of Elizabeth's first great-grandchild was certainly a big thing. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He will most likely not be Lord Name Windsor, as that is a title reserved for younger sons of high ranking peers. He is the eldest son of a duke, and therefore will likely carry a subsidiary title of his father (older sons of Dukes are usually granted the courtesy of a marquess or an earl). His father is also Earl of Dumbarton so, if the royal family is keeping with the customs that they almost always do, this baby will be Earl Dumbarton. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holding the title of earl (or in his case not even actually holding the title, but just using it as a courtesy title) or the title of count in other countries doesn't confer notability. We don't have articles on every French count either. --Tataral (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he's a prince at the moment, did I? His situation is similar to that of Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, and just like them he'll be a grandchild to a future king. By the way, the birth of Savannah Phillips did not cause a worldwide baby shower that raised thousands of dollars for charities, while the birth of this child did. There are countless other reasons as well, and a few of them have been mentioned below (his African-American ancestry, etc). Keivan.f^Talk 16:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lesson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex: don't be charitable if you want your child's right to privacy to be respected. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The child will be Prince when his grandfather is crowned king. He will be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton unless the queen decides he should become HRH Prince... now, but it seems unlikely. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - while I totally understand the privacy argument (a problem to be taken up with the media in general), this baby is really encyclopedically notable. In addition to being the grandson of the future King of 17 countries, this baby is the first and only g-grandchild of the Queen (or any British sovereign monarch) to have African-American descent - it's a big deal worldwide. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per WP:RAPID - we have wide international coverage of the birth and at this point it is too soon to tell whether it will be sustained. Furthermore, looking at this analytically, this individual is likely to be the grandson of the king and subsequently nephew, and cousin at worst (assuming no unfortunate events along the way) - this is indeed a somewhat different situation that other great-grandchildren of the Queen who are not so close to the current line of succession. It seems highly likely that the British (and international) press will continue to cover this individual in the future. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is wide international coverage of the birth because it affects two notable parents. Between the baptism and the first day of school there will be nothing to cover. And after the first day of school there will be nothing to report on until the first day of middle school, and so on. There is an obvious intent to shield him from the media. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, seriously? This has happened for every one of the last three royal babies, and the result of each was keep. As this one will be. Why are you wasting your time nominating it for deletion when it so clearly crosses the notability threshold? It's literally top of news headlines world wide , it'll be on the front of every newspaper tomorrow, and covered by the press for decades to come. 81.154.72.155 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is that of the parents. The child deserves privacy, much like Malia and Sasha Obama got theirs. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Are Malia and Sasha Obama in line to become President of the United States? They are not. Members of the royal family are notable because of their lineage. That's not the case for Obama's children. Keivan.f^Talk 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being in the line should not be considered grounds for having a Wikipedia biography. Lots of people are in the line, and it is clear that Malia and Sasha have at least as much chance of becoming presidents as this baby has of becoming a king. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand why you are describing the child as a member of the royal family minutes after removing him from Template:British Royal Family. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This child is in line to the throne, but aside from that fact his birth was announced by the palace, and his parents will be having a photo call showing him to the world. Perhaps, if they wanted him to remain a private citizen, they should have let him live a normal life away from the press, as Peter and Zara did. As for your second comment, I think you should check the article. I haven't described him as a member of the family who holds the HRH style, but he's still a great grandson of the Queen. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The newborn child will likely take on the subsidiary title, Earl of Dumbarton, carried by his father Prince Harry. The newborn should not be treated any different than the children of royal family members who are further down the line whose own child/children is/are carrying subsidiary titles, such as Viscount Severn who is the son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. With today's royal birth, Prince Edward is now 11th in line and his children fall behind him. →Lwalt^♦ talk 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just born, but this is still royalty and therefore almost certainly notable. SemiHypercube 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not royalty, and his parents do not want him to be in the spotlight. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so are not Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, as a lot of users mentioned earlier. Keivan.f^Talk 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The wishes of their parents should have been honored too. Louise and James perform no duties and are hardly ever seen in public. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the Earl and Countess of Wessex walk out of hospital showing their children to the press? And now Meghan and Harry will also be posing for the cameras in a few days. I don't consider that privacy. By the way, this child's every step will be followed by the media. From his education to his career and other stuff. Even if they claim that they want privacy, it simply won't happen. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to save information but merge to name and title once they are released in a few days. I believe during the press conference The Duke of Sussex announced the family would make a public appearance in two days. By that time I'm sure the name will be announced. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this child is already more in the public eye than a lot of his other cousins who lack royal titles, not to mention that he is the first member of the royal family by birth to be of significant African heritage (Black British), and I believe that in itself is quite notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Given the numerous other people who have pages on Wiki who are infinitely less notable than this child, this is an obvious keep, in my humble opinion. This child will command attention and notoriety for their entire lives, due to their status/parents, regardless if they are a "HRH" or otherwise (which they are not, but still).LancasterII (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Give me a break. The most talked about baby of the year, seventh in line to the throne, a great-grandchild of the queen and grandchild of the future king, the first American-born and first birracial UK royal, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The baby has been in the news for months now. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No brainer keep. This discussion is a joke. EuroAgurbash (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Please stop tilting at windmills; the child is obviously notable. We're not going to do anything stupid like post their NHS card number, and we have standards to make sure this isn't a privacy-violating mess. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The 7th in line and the nephew (and also cousin) of the future King. Copy EuroAgurbash. --Foghe (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very notable. --rogerd (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It may be a stub right now, but it will soon be expanded very rapidly as more information is revealed.INeedSupport ^:3 18:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I sympathize with the nominator's rational, as it seems this article was started a tad too soon, but the subject does pass the notability guidelines for royalty personal. Given how much coverage the royal family of England regularly receives, it is a given that this article will grow. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. We may make exceptions for heirs to thrones and people who hold certain titles in their own right, but not for someone who is merely 7th in line now (and maybe 30th or 40th or so in a few decades), with no likelihood of succeeding, whose sole claim to fame is one great-grandparent who happens to be royal and who doesn't even hold a royal title (according to the article this child will only hold the minor title of lord which doesn't confer automatic notability and is the equal of "the children of any other duke"). I'm quite sure that similar articles on minor royal relatives without royal titles from other countries like Monaco or Sweden or even Spain and who haven't actually done anything yet would get deleted. We already have far too much nobility/royalty cruft on otherwise non-notable people. By comparison to the US (arguably a more important country than the UK), would we immediately give the great-grandchild of Donald Trump an article on their birth? Or all children of British dukes? --Tataral (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Why delay the inevitable? This person will eventually have an article written about them. 003FX (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is actually the second time this has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete William the Conqueror has many millions of 20th-something great grandchildren. There is nothing special about this one. Uhooep (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The boy is not quite royalty but he is clearly notable as his birth, though not so important as those of his cousins, has still generated much mention in the newspapers. We also expect him to become a prince of the realm upon Charles's accession. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2019 (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.