Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna

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 redirect to Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland. Tone 10:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna[edit]

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

Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna (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)

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

  • The subject is a toddler 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 Gabriel, 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 2-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 2-year-old 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) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Different cases. Gabriel is sixth 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 any other opinion about that is just incorrect, and notability inherited in when it comes to royals are notable. Any other argument is POV. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an article on a 3-year-old who has done nothing of note. If they were to die today, there would be no way to justify actually having an article on them. That we have such articles is truly absurd. We really need to impose much stricter standards against creating articles on people under 10.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 14:33, 11 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) 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is Duke of Dalecarlia, officially received the tile. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a purely nominal title – a PR stunt, basically. It bears no significance. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say about Catherine's very young child??? They are great-grand sons or daughters of Queen.Cape Diamond MM (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BabbaQ. These nominations are getting ridiculous. How exactly is this benefiting the encyclopaedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree fully Necrothesp. BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 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) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is not what I believe. I wrote what I believe. There will be time to reconsider other articles but William's children may be attracting more significant coverage due to being children of a future king, unlike the subject of this article. The point is that significant coverage matters. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 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) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe that the coverage of some other persons is routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person, I encourage you to propose those articles for deletion and make your case. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 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) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... no. Frankly, I am aghast by the notion of "a sense that some topics just are notable". But consider your contribution duly noted. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 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) 00:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a .sig I use on VBulletin forums, and have for many years: "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." I won't say that I'm "aghast" at the ongoing ability of people to equate "discretion" and "common sense" by their own shibboleths -- there's only so long righteous indignation will take a person -- but. Ravenswing 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, purely genealogical article.Smeat75 (talk) 19:40, 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) 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of princelings or anything else. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 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 arguements 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.   // Timothy :: talk  04:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a royal in the line of succession to an extant throne. There's coverage of him frequently. His name reveal made Yahoo; newborn photos made Hello!; his christening made Town and Country and Hola!; plus there's the coverage of him being removed by the King from the royal house (though keeping him in the line of succession). And those are just the English results - I'm sure there's much more in Swedish. --Kbabej (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ... all of which could be covered at other articles, without the pretence that it makes sense to write biographical articles about a three-year-old child. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - came here trying to find this page, so having seems useful. Nesnad (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything there is to know about this toddler can be said in the article about his father, and a redirect would lead you to that information. The article about Donald Trump's 14-year-old son is looked up 50 times more often, and yet a redirect does just fine there too. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at once His older brother's article has been deleted, but this is still here. Why? These are living people, the parents and the little boys, whose lives & life stories should not be handled with such carelessness because a few Wikipedians like to have tiresomely lengthy and supercilious discussions about them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: Brushing off the illegitimate WP:ITSUSEFUL and "All royals are notable!" arguments -- no one's arguing for the notability of cute blond royal toddlers are out there battling for the notability of tribal monarchs in Nigeria, say. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. You can't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." Ravenswing 16:12, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Gabriel,_Duke_of_Dalarna&oldid=974487620"