Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There's a substantial enough consensus to determine that, not being a UK tabloid, we shouldn't cover celebrity pregnancies just because they are celebrity pregnancies, and that there is just too little encyclopedic content to warrant an article before the birth. The pregnancy can still be covered in any other appropriate article, such as the ones about the prospective parents.  Sandstein  08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a pregnancy. A pregnancy that has so far attracted less media attention than Beyoncé's recent pregnancy. Arguments that members of royal families are notable from birth are dubious; that they are notable from conception is absurd and cringeworthy. In case anyone wonders - no, the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is not yet in the line of succession.

We did have an article about Catherine's first pregnancy. It was hotly disputed, of course, and even deleted following a discussion. The article was soon recreated by another user, so I expanded it and later successfully nominated it for DyK. The recreation of that article was against consensus and the subsequent indifference of the community should not be used as a precedent for creating and keeping articles about this and other royal pregnancies. That child was called "the world's most famous baby" by The Washington Post. Its notability stemmed from the likelihood of him or her becoming the next monarch of 16 countries. This pregnancy does not involve "the world's most famous baby" or a future monarch.

Sources merely reporting the palace announcement of the pregnancy do not indicate notability of the pregnancy. With the first pregnancy, for example, we had The Daily Telegraph articles about the upcoming birth's expected impact on economy and tourism. That's what made the article at least marginally reasonable, as opposed to outright fancruft. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no rational argument to have a page about a person who is not born yet. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is pointless to have an article on someone who doesn't exist yet (and wont for 8-9 months!), who will be 5th in line to the throne. This information could be included in the Duchess of Cambridge's article without losing any encyclopaedic value. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Gee, thanks for notifying me about trying to delete an article I created ... oh wait. This future person is obviously going to get a tonne of media attention during their lifetime, around the world ... it would be silly to delete it now and re-create it in twelve months' time or whatever. People will be looking for updates on the pregnancy, etc. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing here suggested I should have notified anyone; did I miss something? Anyway, creating an article now because "this future person" might attract attention in the future is simply too soon. The child might never be born. How morbid would it be to have an article about a miscarried embryo or foetus? This is why we don't have articles on stuff that might be notable in the future. Wikipedia contains articles about topics that are notable now. And what updates on the pregnancy can we expect? A sonogram? I doubt it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ivar the Boneful: There is no requirement to notify the page creator for deletion discussions(though it is suggested and the Twinkle tool does so automatically); it is expected that persons interested in the status of an article will monitor it(especially if they created it). 331dot (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The same argument took place when each of the first two kids were still gestating. The bottom line is that news of this child will continue to be published and the birth will makes world-wide news and will have a huge impact on the British economy. Once the name is announced, the name of this article can and will be changed just like the other two. So why are we having this argument? Do people not have anything better to do? Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What more news do you expect to be published before the birth? This is what the article about the second pregnancy looked like the day before birth: 1901 characters, barely anything new added since the creation in September. The article about the third pregnancy is now 1015 characters long, meaning we can expect about two more sentences. There will not be any more announcements, sex reveals, sonograms, etc. So what news are you expecting? The article about the second pregnancy also did not mention any impact on the British economy, nor does the article about Charlotte now mention her birth had any such impact. Are you speculating the third pregnancy will be different?
      We are having this argument because the subject of the article is the pregnancy of a princess. Two sourced, meaningful sentences that belong in another article. Only two. Yet people have nothing better to do than to knock together an article about a celeb pregnancy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I kindly ask everyone to take a look at Beyoncé#Marriage and children. It's a GA-rated article, and there is more info there about Beyoncé's pregnancies than there is about Catherine's in this article. Like Catherine's, her pregnancies made world-wide news and attracted media-attention throughout the gestation. Unlike Catherine's, announcements of Beyoncé's pregnancies apparently broke several world records. We nevertheless had enough sense not to turn that into articles. Here we have a mere announcement and congratulations, yet it is supposed to be notable enough for an article? If people here cite articles on Catherine's previous pregnancies as precedents, why not also cite restraint and common sense in dealing with Beyoncé's pregnancies? Honestly, I find it sad we've come to debating this. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as with the couple's second child, this unborn child became notable just as soon as the pregnancy was announced. So as keeping this article involves no apparent policy contraventions, there are no apparent sound policy-based reasons to delete it. Any doubt as to whether this unborn child is already notable can be quickly dispelled by looking at world coverage of the announcement. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The announcement of Beyoncé's pregnancy received such a world coverage that it entered Guinness World Records. Much more notable than this gestation, apparently. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beyoncé's pregnancy has no relevance in this discussion. The topic of the article here in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so per WP:GNG it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Catherine's previous pregnancies are being invoked as precedents. Why can't I bring up Beyoncé's pregnancy, which received far more coverage and even ended up in Guinness World Records? Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think we need actually precedents to see that we have a notable topic here, we have adequate significant worldwide coverage of the topic to satisy WP:GNG. It is informative though to note that the same happened last time too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree with your premise, however. What's covered is the announcement. Nothing else. The article consists of two sensible, sourced sentences, and judging by the coverage of the previous pregnancy, it's not likely to contain anything else. Beyoncé's announcement was covered far more, and it's informative to note that we did not make an article out of it. Double standards, obviously, and worth considering. Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - rare exception of notability before birth. This child will be in the succession order for the throne and the world wide coverage of the announcement of the pregnancy can only be described as international on a large scale. I guess WP:GNG is appropriate as well.BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited (no, not even for "royal families" as a general rule, especially when the child is utterly unlikely to ever inherit any throne; there are literally thousands of minor members of royal families around the world who will never rule anywhere), and especially not for someone who isn't even born and thus doesn't even exist. --Tataral (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me how the baby does not exist when it has been confirmed by the couple that Kate is pregnant. Who is media and the Royal family talking about then? Is it nothing inside Kates belly? Do you know something I don't? That reasoning of yours is flawed. By the way, do you have a crystal ball to see if this baby is going to inherit the throne or not.BabbaQ (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK a person comes into existence at birth, as Surtsicna noted. An embryo/fetus isn't a person (especially not in the early stages of a pregnancy, at a point where the mother could still choose to abort the pregnancy for example). Other than that, what on earth has this non-person (embryo/fetus) done to be independently WP:NOTABLE? Also, in the extremely unlikely event that this hypothetical future person were to come anywhere near the throne in question at some point in the future, we would write about them at that point, if it became a relevant issue – in the same way that we don't write about every newborn person in the UK in the event that they might become Prime Minister 50 years later; we write about those who actually become notable when they become notable. --Tataral (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tataral: this article isn't yet about a born person, it is currently about an expected person. And, per WP:GNG, the fact that since the announcement, this topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" we can presume it to be suitable for a stand-alone article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't rely on inherited notability - there is ample and significant worldwide coverage of the topic to satisy WP:GNG in its own right - so that argument doesn't hold. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.BabbaQ (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of what? Of an announcement? That's what's in the article now. We literally have an article about an announcement. What else is covered out there that the article should contain? Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not an encyclopedic article about an encyclopedic topic, but a short press release about a British woman's health (that doesn't really contain much information either). Everything in this article would belong in the article about the woman. --Tataral (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep– Is this sort of thing going to happen for every child that Kate has? It's already been established by the precedent of previous AfDs that an article on an unborn child of Prince William is notable.Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? There are no "previous AfDs" to serve as precedent for keeping this. The consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge was to delete the Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge! Besides, this article is not about a child. Take a look at it; it's about a press release. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Surtsicna: this article is not about a "press release", it is about an, as yet, unborn child, the announcement of which received significant worldwide coverage. And BTW, why didn't you also mention the deletion debate for child number two, raised by yourself on the date that pregnancy was announced? If you recall, it resulted in a "keep". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DeFacto: Because Chessrat mentioned "previous AfDs". As if the article about Catherine's first pregnancy hadn't been deleted following a discussion.
          If the article is not about a press release but about a child, why is there nothing in it but the press release? Where is the sourced info about the child? If there is a significant worldwide coverage and notability, why doesn't the article reflect that? Why does it, instead, consist of two sentences that are entirely about the mother? On that grounds I challenge your claim that this unborn child has received enough coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I distinctly recall being involved with the article that became Prince George of Cambridge well before he was born.If a deletion happened it did not stick for long!LE (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Surtsicna: as I see it, the topic has to satisfy WP:GNG, and as the topic is covered by countless independent, secondary reliable sources from around the world, then whether it does, or not, hinges on the subjective question as to whether those sources provide "significant coverage". My view is clearly that they do, as they provide everything we could possibly expect to know at this stage. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @DeFacto: But what is the topic? If it's a child, why are none of the countless, secondary reliable sources cited in the article to support anything about the child? If a child is the topic, why is the entire article about a press release? Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Surtsicna: the topic is the third child, currently unborn, and almost certain to become a named person. WP:VER doesn't specify either an upper or lower limit for the number of sources quoted, just that they are available, although there do seem to be four used in the article at the moment. I see an article about the third child, and can't see even a mention of any press release. The article will presumably grow if enthusiastic editors gets involved, but even as a stub it complies with all Wikipedia core article policies as far as I can tell. If you disagree, please explain which policies you think are contravened. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • You see a title that suggests that the article is about a child. The content is not about any child, however. If you truly see an article about a child, I must say you are imagining it because the article contains no basic biographical information, nothing that indicates that it's about a child, a human, a person. By law, it isn't even any of those things, but that's another matter. You do not see any mention of a press release, but you can see an announcement mentioned three times, once in all three sourced sentences and more often than the child itself. That in itself should be a red flag, but if you want me to name policies which this contravenes, I can easily start with WP:Article titles. The content of this article simply does not match its title. And if the article is indeed supposed to be a child, then it fails the entire MOS:OPENPARA. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Surtsicna: the title will evolve along with the content and compliance with MOS guidelines usually improves as more visitors get involved with improvements. I'm not sure that any of those are strong enough reasons to delete this stub though, especially as we know this topic will have legs. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have already explained that this article will not grow. I cited the example of the article about Catherine's previous pregnancy/pregnancy announcement. Barely anything new was added to it from its creation shortly after the announcement to the child's birth. No further information was released by the palace or the gynecologist and we were unwilling to include media speculations about names, due dates, weight put on by the expectant mother, etc. No, this article will not comply with MoS guidelines for biographies as long as it doesn't treat an existing person. It cannot possibly comply with anything in WP:OPENPARA.
                      When the child actually comes into the world, the article will be entirely revamped. Nothing currently in there will remain, judging by how we handled Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 3 days before and a week after she was born. There is absolutely no continuity between what the article looked like before and what the article looked like after the birth. Why? Because the article went from being about a pregnancy [announcement], part of another person's biography, to being an article about a new person, a biography. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: this isn't yet a biography, it is about an unborn child. As a stub, it clearly won't conform with all the ideal style characteristics as recommended in the MoS guidelines you mention. None of what you say is reason for deletion per the WP:DEL policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this bio article as necessary, until the Duchess of Cambridge has the child. As a compromise, this article could be re-directed to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the current standings being 5-8 in support of deletion, after examining this discussion carefully, I have concluded that there is not yet a solid consensus. More participation will be welcomed, and I feel that this discussion will attract a lot of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. KMF (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Catherine's page until the child is born. This is a notable topic, but about her pregnancy and not the unborn child itself. It can be covered on her page until the child is born. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Catherine's article. This is a difficult one. On one hand the child will be notable when they are born. On the other hand they may never be born because of any number of unforeseen events. On yet another hand none of the sources actually cover the unborn child (and how could they? The fetus is roughly the size of a lemon). Given these conditions, I think following WP:BLP1E is our best bet because 1) RS only cover this fetus in the context of Catherine being pregnant. 2) "Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is likely to remain a low-profile individual. (N.b. The child will be notable under the name they are given, not this pseudo-title). 3) Catherine's third pregnancy is likely to not be significant on its own. As such, the event of the pregnancy should be covered within Catherine's article, and then split off (at the very earliest) when we have a name for the child. menaechmi (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it might not be born. They may never have a third child.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculative child (pregnancy may end in miscarriage, etc. - in which case this will clearly be non-notable standalong) - per WP:BALL. Does not meet notability guidelines. Writing about the pregnancy should be done at the mother (and possibly father). If and when the child is born, and assuming he/she meets GNG (likely), then we should create an article (which will probably be created immediately, though no harm to Wikipedia will be done if we wait until the sixth birthday or so - but it's a lost cause).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! the other two children of this couple each had sustained prenatal articles--only if there is a miscarriage is deletion warranted.If born this child is guaranteed an article for life so no reason to postpone the inevitable.LE (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. If the embryo is notable now, then it would stay notable even in the case of a miscarriage. If the embryo is not notable now, as we believe it isn't, it doesn't warrant an article. Whether or not other "prenatal articles" existed is irrelevant; the first embryo article was recreated without consensus after the community decided it should be deleted, and the second never made it past a few lines about the mother's pregnancy announcement. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The news coverage about the pregnancy clearly pushes the article topic above WP:GNG. WP:BALL does not apply here, given that the pregnancy, and various facts related to it (e.g. place in succession) are not unverified speculation, but well-sourced statements. The title may not be the best, since the "child" does not yet exist, but the pregnancy certainly does, and that's notable. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you suggest a title such as Third pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge? That would at least be fair (i.e. not deceitful) to the readers but it begs some questions. For one, if the article is about a notable pregnancy and not about a child, should we not retain the pregnancy article after the child is born and create a new article for the child? Past examples show that, no matter how notable people argued the pregnancy to be, everything about it was deleted once the child was born and nobody cared about the pregnancy anymore.[1][2] So are Catherine's pregnancies encyclopedically notable or are they just news? Yes, Catherine's pregnancy is in the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If the plan is to delete all of this in a few months, why not delete/merge it now? Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The plan,obviously,is to develop the article into one about a live infant once the pregnancy comes to term,with the article aborted if it does not.I felt the List of British monarchy records was incorrect when it treated Queen Anne's 17 mostly-miscarried/stillborn pregnancies as giving her the most "children" of a queen regnant,but just as you don't count your chickens before they're hatched you don't discount your eggs before they're cracked.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is obviously the plan. That means, however, that the present topic of the article (i.e. Catherine's third pregnancy) is not notable, since everything written about it now will be discarded once the pregnancy ends. If her illness and cancelled engagements were deserving of an article now, they would be notable in a year as well. But they are not and will not be. In other words, WP:NOTNEWS. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both articles of the couple's current children begin the bios with information on the pregnancy announcement.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is what the article about Catherine's second pregnancy looked like few days before the childbirth. This is the same article two weeks after the childbirth. The morning sickness, cancelled engagements, good wishes and similar nonsense gone and nobody batted an eye. So what's your point? That this article should be reduced to the one sentence about the announcement, as that's the only notable part? Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS's Who's who. & WP:RECENTISM. All references were published on 4 Sept only. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously, per WP:NOT#NEWS. I know that that policy is routinely ignored by many editors in AfD discussions, but if it is to be ignored then a proper discussion should take place at WT:NOT to deprecate it rather than continue with the current situation where people repeat the "it got into loads of newspapers so we must have an article about it" nonsense. News reports, by any definition in the real world outside Wikipedia, are primary sources, so not sufficient to be the basis of encyclopedia articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mfarazbaig made a good point about all references being published on 4 September only. That's precisely what makes this pure news. There is no on-going interest in the pregnancy. (There is no scholarly interest in it whatsoever, as far as I can tell.) She is pregnant, and that's it. I have shown that nothing new will be added - until the day this is all deleted anyway and replaced with more sensible content. I have also started to wonder if this is going to be relisted until the estimated date of confinement. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to the article on the mother until the child is born. There is very little we can say about the child at present and that will likely remain the case until it is born. If the pregnancy doesn't end in a miscarriage then the child will receive huge media coverage throughout his or her life and we can certainly have an article on him/her then, but if the pregnancy does end in miscarriage then I doubt we will maintain a standalone article at all. Hut 8.5 14:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe this project needs something like the WP:TPHL for babies, "If the name and gender of a future birth are not yet known, the unborn child is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have intended that as a joke, but it doesn't sound half bad! Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A wise idea - how many BLPs contain information about the mother's pregnancy? --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't forget: this isn't a BLP, yet. Currently it's an article about an unborn baby. And because of the unprecedented amount of world media attention that this unborn child has received since the announcement, is a valid candidate for a new article in it's own right as notability is very clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WP:BLP policy clearly applies here, the living person being the Duchess of Cambridge. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure we have to comply with WP:BLP for information in this article about the Duke or the Duchess, or anyone else - but this article is specifically about an, as yet, unborn child, and not anyone else. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you joking? Where is the basic biographical information about the "third child"? The article is entirely about a woman's health. You could title it "2017 London earthquake" but its content would still show it's about a woman's health. Surtsicna (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I'm emphatically not joking. The article is clearly about the unborn child and the background to, impact of (including the effect on the mother's health), and reactions to, the existence of the unborn baby since the announcement. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. There is religious, philosophical, scientific and even political disagreement about if and when an unborn child becomes a living person in its own right, but pretty well everyone agrees that an unborn child is either a living person or part of its mother, who is a living person. Either way this is an article about a living person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Let us do a count then. The purported subject of the article (the "third child") is mentioned 11 times; it is the grammatical subject of 5 sentences. The parents are mentioned c. 20 times; they are the grammatical subject(s) of 12 sentences. In what universe does that mean the article is about the unborn child rather than about the parents? Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Surtsicna: the article is about the unborn child, and I cannot understand why you are doubting that. Clearly the parents, particularly the mother, are intimately involved in everything that involves the child, and that will remain the case for a long time after the child is born too. But that doesn't change the fact that the primary subject of the article is the child - the article wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Delete The child doesn't exist. The fetus does. The child doesn't, in the eyes of the law, start to exist until the day it is born. Until then it is a part of its mother and any information about it can be placed in the article(s) of the parents. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have given you the numbers which show that the article is primarily (or entirely) about the parents, so of course I doubt unsubstantiated assertions that it is about something else. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  WP:HOAX.  Just a simple WP:BEFORE D1 using the first two links on Google shows that this is a fake title.  The first link uses future tense for the current pregnancy, and the second link states, "Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (1833-1897) was the third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge".  Editors have also testified that there is no intention that the current material is intended to remain in the encyclopedia, which in policy terms is both unencyclopedic and notnewspaper.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we should at least wait until after someone is born to create an article on someone. miscarriages can and do happen, and if this child dies before birth they will be non-notable. This is not to say we need an article when the child is born, but we clearly do not need an article at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we actually have the two notable sentences on the subject of this unborn child (whose sex seems not yet known) in the article on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Having a seperate article on this person should at least wait until he/she can survive in some way seperate from his/her mother, and probably longer than that. Not every member of a royal family is default notable. Do we have articles on all living descendants of Elizabeth II? Georige V? at what point does it stop?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I lost track of where the odd comment "most babies survive birth in this day and age" was. If the pregnancy is in as early a stage as some suggest, than no, in Russia the majoirty of babies die before birth. Actually, most conceptions results in spontaneous abortions (miscarriages, specifically very early term ones), but this pregnancy is almost certainly beyond that point. However miscariages up to time of birth, and still-births are still occurances, maybe not at levels seen in the 19th-century and earlier, but they do occur. At least in the US maternal mortality is by some measures higher than what is experienced for soldiers in a modern war zone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject to more than enough coverage, with further development a certainty. While a “merge and redirect” to mother is justifiable (is it the mother’s pregnancy or the baby’s gestation?), a separate article at this stage has the advantage of cleaner article histories. The pregnancy stuff belongs in the early history of the child’s article, not lost in the long history of the mother’s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'll start with what I think is most important here, that is, notability is not inherited. This is an article about an unborn child, it's not an arguable position to say that the non-person (as yet) is notable. As it is, there isn't a guideline for dealing with the notability of people who are considered royalty, and, there is even less of that for a person who hasn't been born yet. In that regard I have to go with the most basic criteria available; People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In this case, the subject of the article comprehensively fails all of the above. The person has not received any coverage independent of it's parents, the Queen, or any other persons, and, the pregnancy itself is the subject of the sources and not the child. Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS, exists for the very reason this article does. This entire article is stitched together by minor press releases. I mean for god's sake; a) Early media speculations were that the baby will be born at St Mary's Hospital, London, were the couple's other two children were born. <- The media engages in WP:CRYSTALBALL big woop. b) On 7 September 2017, Prince George, the couple's oldest child, started school. Because of severe morning sickness the Duchess was unable to accompany George, who arrived at school holding just his father's hand <- random WP:TRIVIAL fact that has naught to do with the supposed subject of the article. and c) On the day of the announcement, bookmakers started taking bets on the baby's name. Alice and Victoria emerged as favourites <- are you serious? this is plain indiscriminately collected unencyclopaedic material. Take away all of the garbage from the actual article and you are left with no more than is present in the lede; The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their third child. Kensington Palace made the announcement on 4 September 2017 and the baby is thought to be due in March or April 2018. I don't want to say WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, but, there is naught in the article or in the sources presented to suggest that the subject is notable. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_child_of_the_Duke_and_Duchess_of_Cambridge&oldid=1144646079"