Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Phillips

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. A redirect was suggested, and seems reasonable, but there's clear consensus to delete, so I'll go along with that. If anybody wants to create a redirect on their own, there's nothing to prevent you from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Phillips[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)

I hate to nominate this because it is one of the first articles created by a recently registered user, but the subject is a 7-year-old child whose parents are both private citizens. She happens to be related to notable people but leads an entirely private life, as the article itself notes. The biography section is a joke. There is no significant coverage by reputable sources. BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph and similar media merely report her existence, unsurprising given that she is only fifteenth in the line of succession (soon to drop lower) and that her parents clearly want her out of the spotlight. The only thing known about her is that she attends family gatherings. That is not particularly extraordinary for a seven-year-old. Unlike her royal second cousins (George, Charlotte and Louis), she holds no title and is not expected to ever have any constitutional or public role. This feels like Obama girls again. We do not need this article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is a great grandchild of the Queen of England so she will get some coverage in RS. She is the first Canadian in line for the throne (though unlikely to get it). I would not expect a huge biography section for a seven year old. Alternatively a mini bio somewhere would be appropriate but should that be under her father or mother's page? Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some coverage" is not enough to establish notability. What we need is "significant coverage". Reliable sources do not provide it because she does not have, nor is she likely to ever have, any public role and because her parents are both private citizens. Being an untitled great-great-grandchild of Elizabeth II is not much different than being an untitled child of Angelina Jolie or Barrack Obama; you get some coverage, but not significant coverage, in reputable sources and more in tabloids. The articles about her parents contain all the relevant information: her name, date of birth, and place in the line of succession. That's it, one sentence. That she was photographed somewhere or that she went to church for Christmas and a wedding is not biographical or encyclopedic information. It's a diary entry. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an untitled great-great-grandchild of Elizabeth II. She is an untitled great-grandchild of Elizabeth II. That doesn't matter, but we should be accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not a great grandchild of the Queen of England. She's the great grandchild of the Queen of the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth realms. Check up the 1707 Act of Unions & the 1800 Act of Union (for examples). GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exact title of her great-grandmother does not matter for this purpose, and England is part of one of her domains. So what? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say above that we should be accurate even when it does not matter? haha :D Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus formed five years ago was to redirect to her father, Peter Phillips, (4 !votes, I believe, as against 1 for her mother, and 0 for keep). Administrators can read the discussion at Talk: Savannah Phillips (3), where it was recently moved and speedily deleted, along the the prior article's considerable pre-redirect history. It would seem courteous to ping participants in that discussion, since their consensus has been overriden (and deleted, to boot). I think the article now under discussion cites the same 8 sources as the previously redirected one, plus 3 new ones (one of which is the aforementioned photo caption). --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the great grand child of the Queen of the United Kingdom, doesn't automatically mean ya get a Wikipedia bio article. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Apology - I had not been aware that there had been history in the redirect or the redirect talk page. I will try to remember to look behind redirects when promoting drafts. Can the redirect talk page be restored for copying to the talk page of the article in question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that the key issue has to do with what constitutes significant coverage for purpose of general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What policies and guidelines are applicable beyond general notability guidelines and the guideline about minors? Can we identify all of the applicable policies and guidelines? I have not, for instance, found a guideline having to do with royal families. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need a guideline having to do with royal families? Little Savannah Phillips is not royal. She is not a princess, not a "Royal Highness". She is the 7-year-old daughter of two private citizens. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not, since there is no significant coverage. The only time reputable sources were interested in her was when she was born, which is true for any celebrity's child. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Being a gt-gd-child of Queen Elizabeth II does not in-and-of-itself establish Savannah Phillips' notability; neither does the media's interest in her birth into a highly publicized family. While she may in the future do things that make her "worthy of notice", she has not yet done so. Drdpw (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father, Peter Phillips. As the subject grows up, if she does things that bring her significant press coverage (even for just being a socialite), the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father, per Metropolitan90's suggestion and WP:INVALIDBIO, as there's content about her there already. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession demonstrates that the children of minor royals do not have articles about them unless they are notable for other reasons. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father, Peter Phillips, per above. If the only coverage is her birth, that's WP:BLP1E. Catrìona (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Miserably fails notability guidelines. The subject is an untitled distant relative of a royalty with no significant coverage. The subject clearly does not pass WP:NOTINHERITED. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is based on current coverage and not presumed future coverage and current coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The equivalent would be the children of Gerald David Lascelles, great grand children to George V who get a mention in their father's article but no redirect. Cabayi (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though she is likely to get her article in the future, it's a case of inherited notability at the moment. A stand-alone article is not suitable. However, she can be discussed/mentioned briefly in related topics with Wikipedia entries. Dial911 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are solid common-sense arguments being presented for Keep, and solid common-sense arguments being presented for Delete or Redirect. That is why I asked above for arguments based on policies and guidelines. The arguments for deletion or redirection are being presented with great certainty, as if there is a basis for them other than common sense (which cuts both ways), but the only policy argument that I see is general notability, and she has been the subject of continued coverage, not just about her birth, but in the context of her family. That is why I had asked if there was a guideline about royal families, and am told dismissively that there isn't an issue; however, the fact that she doesn't have a title, unlike some of her cousins, doesn't change what family she is in a branch of. Maybe a guideline on royal families that states what members are and are not notable might be useful. As it is, however, the only policy-based argument that I see is [[WP:GNG|general notability}}, and it does appear that that is met. Therefore:
Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 1 January 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.