Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sienna Mozzi

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 Princess Beatrice. I think that there is a consensus to Redirect this article right now. If this individual goes on to achieve notability beyond their parents, an article can be created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Mozzi[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 don't see how a 16-month-old individual can be independently notable; notability is not inherited, and the only content is a family tree, which alone cannot sustain an article (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). All sources appear to be tabloid or non-substantial coverage, and given the subject's youth, sources satisfying WP:GNG are unlikely to exist at this time. ^Complex/_Rational 00:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of some of the comments below, I believe redirection to Princess Beatrice is reasonable. I still think she is too young for there to exist enough independent content to sustain a standalone article, but such coverage will exist in due time. ^Complex/_Rational 01:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. ^Complex/_Rational 00:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per notability guidelines, being related to someone notable doesn’t establish notability. Raltoid (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Beatrice? She's only famous for being born. She's 11th in the line of succession, so that's a bust for GNG. Her birth is covered, nothing about her as a person (and even if there was, she's 2 yrs old. Toddlers rarely if ever do anything for GNG. I mean we can revisit if she reinvents the wheel or something.) Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's not notable because she's related to someone. She's notable because she's tenth in line to one of the most notable thrones in the world. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a precedent for having articles about young members of royal families; see Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Beatrice. Delete the page with a possibility of re-creation if she gains individual notability. FireInMe (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a Redirect to her mother as a useful ATD, because she is a plausible search term, but we should avoid having articles on people as young as she currently is unless absolutely necessary in my view. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp and Partofthemachine. Those listed among the upper numbers at Succession to the British throne are notable upon birth and receive considerable publicity. Being positioned in tenth place automatically qualifies her as the subject of an English Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect. Her age should not be a factor in this discussion. Nor who she is related to. We should simply assess if she meets WP:GNG. I think she doesn't, as she is only notable for one event, which is her birth, see WP:BLP1E but I predict she will be notable soon. Redirect to her closest notable relative. CT55555(talk) 02:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NPERSON, and WP:GNG. After a comprehensive search that took me most of the day, I’m afraid I couldn’t find sufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability. Serratra (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what did you find during your day long search for references, Serratra? I'm curious. They may not be sufficient sources but they might help the discussion progress. What turned up for you? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Liz, I'm curious too. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies, for the past 3-4 weeks, Serratra's pattern has been to show up at AFDs and vote the opposite of where the majority "vote" is heading. So, his random "Keeps" when everyone else is saying "Delete" (and vice versa) have caused some unnecessary discussion relistings. I guess he has been blocked as a sockpuppet now but I thought he was just trolling, throwing a monkeywrench into a lot of AFD discussions. But he knew all of the appropriate lingo so most editors tried to dialogue with him about his opinions but he never returned to engage in a proper discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Liz, I was so busy striking through the comments and reverting them where possible that I wasn't really looking for a pattern, though I did see a few where they just went along with the one comment that was already there. I also didn't look to see how much time they spent between edits, and it doesn't really matter anyway: it's all vacuous. Yes, they're blocked, and yes, a few of those discussions were relisted and/or closed, so it is possible that they managed to derail the process. But you look at a lot of these, and you've seen them at work now--they're persistent, but a warned admin counts for two; next time, feel free to drop me a line, or to add to the SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (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.