Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Knatchbull

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 of the debate was Delete. I actually think this wasn't a great debate. For a start, she seems to be no less notable than her father who wasn't nominated. Secondly, her deletion breaks the line of succession infobox. But, never mind, the community has spoken and deleted it shall be. kingboyk 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Knatchbull

469th in line for the British throne. Does that make her notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seeing as Cathrine Ferner Johansen at no 76 doesn't have an article I agree (also seems less notable than Bridie Goldstein whom we seem to be deleting above). Succession appears to be the only claim to notability in the article. Dlyons493 Talk 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if her only claim to notability is being 469 in line, then outta here. Especially while 76 doesn't have an article. If there is something else, of course, keep her in. Moreover, if there is some project:British Royalty and those guys decide to make an article on anyone in the line of succession, then we could keep it... when the 250 redlinks above her are done. As I scroll through the list at Line of succession to the British Throne, I notice that the only people above 469th who are filled in tend to be notable for other reasons, e.g. being the monarch, or very low in the line of succession to a monarch, of another nation. --Deville (Talk) 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless she's hot and someone adds a photo before the vote ends. Golfcam 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No just delete anyway. Golfcam 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• SAVE! She goes to my school. Her great aunt was married to Tsar Nicolas the 2nd, i.e. last Tsar of Russia - the one killed by the Bolsheviks. If this ain't relevant enough then there has to be some serious talking.- User QwentyJ 02:15, 26 March 2006
• SAVE Another point, of course being 469th in line to the throne is relevant. How many of you can say that?
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• SAVE Being 469th in line to the British throne is, in my opinion, more than notable enough to warrant keeping an active article on Miss Knatchbull. It seems the only notable argument as to why she should be removed is that there are 250 people preceeding her in succession to the throne who do not have their own articles. In this case, the solution is not to remove Miss Knatchbull, but to create articles for these 250 people! If we removed certain articles simply because there are other 'more relevant' ones that have not been documented, we could contest thousands of the articles on Wikipedia just based on our personal opinions of their 'relevancy'. - User David 18:15, 27 March 2006
• SAVE - agreed as above. Exactly the point I should have made. I hope people judge this deletion decision not on the vote count, but on the quality of the arguements. How about - Nlu,Dlyons493,Deville and moreover Golfcam, you sicko - let's create threads for the 468 people in front of Ms. Knatchbull. Also, it's her birthday on the 30th so do please be kind. #REDIRECT QwentyJ

Indeed, you're right that people should "judge this deletion decision not on the vote count, but on the quality of the arguments [sic]." Of course, the quality of the arguments is indeed speaking for the article's deletion. --Nlu (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which arguments are you referring to, Nlu?

The first one presented - that being in line for the British throne is simply not worthy of a brief article? On the contrary, there already exists an article 'Line of Succession to the British Throne', which lists the 906 royal inheritants, many of whom have their own articles. Indeed, the British throne and its succession is an historic facet of British society with significant interest among British people. So there is clearly a current interest in the subject.

Or perhaps the second argument, that Miss Knatchbull should not be included because there are 250 people ahead of her (including number 76) without their own articles? But surely if we are trying to assemble details of the succession to the throne, and there are gaps in the sequence, it makes no sense to delete the ones we already have? Rather, we should create details for the ones we are missing. I fail to see a clear argument for her removal, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is already engaged in an effort to create details for the succession to the British throne. - User David 21:06, 27 March 2006

• Delete as nn. feydey 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• SAVE - Fill up the previous 468 befor her.

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.