- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
AfDs for this article:
- Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge ( | 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 a pretty pointless disambiguation page because nobody is commonly referred to as "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" and as such it is an implausible search term. This was previously deleted in a September 2014 RFD where consensus favored deletion over disambiguation, but it was disambiguated anyway in February. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as useless —Мандичка YO 😜 07:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: might make sense if there was a role assigned to the "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" (to carry a bunch of flowers at state opening of parliament, that sort of thing)... but there isn't. Unlikely search term, unnecessary dab page. Pam D 09:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this is how the current eldest child was known before being born - see Prince William and Kate’s baby becomes first person to get Wikipedia page before being born.
- The page was there for some time and there are external links to it. We should not dump our visitors in limbo, when we can have a perfectly good disambiguation page.
- The term is also widely used, there are hundreds of uses in the press, even Kensington Palace used it in Media pack for the birth of the first child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
- All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
- In fact the page itself probably passes GNG.
Signpost. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
- This is because the
Prince George of Cambridge article was named this before he was born as a placeholder. This isn't an official title or this could be a plausible disambiguation. I'd compare this to the
"Untitled project" redirects that are routinely deleted at RFD. Any incoming links can be piped to the Prince George article. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you're going to pipe or redirect it anywhere, it should be to either
Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children or
Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Fatherhood, and not to one or other of the two current offspring.
Pam
D
11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want it redirected anywhere. I'm talking about piping the old Signpost link that Rich posted. It is clearly referring to Prince George but it was back when the article was at Child of the Duke... By piping that link to Prince George, you preserve that original name in the Signpost while linking to where it's supposed to go. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you're going to pipe or redirect it anywhere, it should be to either
Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children or
Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Fatherhood, and not to one or other of the two current offspring.
Pam
D
11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is because the
Prince George of Cambridge article was named this before he was born as a placeholder. This isn't an official title or this could be a plausible disambiguation. I'd compare this to the
"Untitled project" redirects that are routinely deleted at RFD. Any incoming links can be piped to the Prince George article. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- In fact the page itself probably passes GNG.
- Delete: Truly pointless. It refers neither to an individual nor to a role/position of some sort. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note page gets around 100 hits per month. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
- Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete this is a Google search term, not a disambiguation title. Anyone looking for their children's names would use one of the parents' articles or Google.
Boleyn (
talk)
20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Boleyn
Are you aware that there are incoming links from outside Wikipedia to this page? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC).
- Boleyn
- 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.
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
AfDs for this article:
- Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge ( | 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 a pretty pointless disambiguation page because nobody is commonly referred to as "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" and as such it is an implausible search term. This was previously deleted in a September 2014 RFD where consensus favored deletion over disambiguation, but it was disambiguated anyway in February. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as useless —Мандичка YO 😜 07:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: might make sense if there was a role assigned to the "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" (to carry a bunch of flowers at state opening of parliament, that sort of thing)... but there isn't. Unlikely search term, unnecessary dab page. Pam D 09:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this is how the current eldest child was known before being born - see Prince William and Kate’s baby becomes first person to get Wikipedia page before being born.
- The page was there for some time and there are external links to it. We should not dump our visitors in limbo, when we can have a perfectly good disambiguation page.
- The term is also widely used, there are hundreds of uses in the press, even Kensington Palace used it in Media pack for the birth of the first child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
- All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
- In fact the page itself probably passes GNG.
Signpost. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
- This is because the
Prince George of Cambridge article was named this before he was born as a placeholder. This isn't an official title or this could be a plausible disambiguation. I'd compare this to the
"Untitled project" redirects that are routinely deleted at RFD. Any incoming links can be piped to the Prince George article. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you're going to pipe or redirect it anywhere, it should be to either
Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children or
Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Fatherhood, and not to one or other of the two current offspring.
Pam
D
11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want it redirected anywhere. I'm talking about piping the old Signpost link that Rich posted. It is clearly referring to Prince George but it was back when the article was at Child of the Duke... By piping that link to Prince George, you preserve that original name in the Signpost while linking to where it's supposed to go. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you're going to pipe or redirect it anywhere, it should be to either
Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children or
Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Fatherhood, and not to one or other of the two current offspring.
Pam
D
11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is because the
Prince George of Cambridge article was named this before he was born as a placeholder. This isn't an official title or this could be a plausible disambiguation. I'd compare this to the
"Untitled project" redirects that are routinely deleted at RFD. Any incoming links can be piped to the Prince George article. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- In fact the page itself probably passes GNG.
- Delete: Truly pointless. It refers neither to an individual nor to a role/position of some sort. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note page gets around 100 hits per month. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
- Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete this is a Google search term, not a disambiguation title. Anyone looking for their children's names would use one of the parents' articles or Google.
Boleyn (
talk)
20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Boleyn Are you aware that there are incoming links from outside Wikipedia to this page? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC).
- Boleyn
- 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.