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. Tone 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep As evidence that the result is not always delete, see
AfD for "Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", the result was keep. The child will arguably get more media coverage than Charlotte or Louis because they are the first for Meghan and Harry, and therefore be notable enough for an article before birth. More information can be added to the article right now (about surnames, health risks of going to Tonga and Fiji from Zika virus, etc.) and it will be likely that since this is a more significant event than Louis or Charlotte (media wise) - more information will be released by the Royal Family officially before birth to stave off rumours, or more information will come to light otherwise.
MarkiPoli (
talk) 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
SALT Last this type of article happened it went through four AfD's recreations.
Govvy (
talk) 15:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ridiculously too soon.--
Stelmaris (
talk) 16:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Is not a child and possibly may never be.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 21:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's ridiculous to have a whole article about a fetus. Unless the fetus has horns or something.
Succubus MacAstaroth (
talk) 23:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wait until the birth at the very earliest.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as some have pointed out, the birth of unborn children is not gauranteed. The article seems to suggest the pregnancy is only 2-4 months along. I do not think even the moment of birth is a notable point. True, this person will be the first potential heir to the crown of Britain of African-American descent, but seeing it that way involves a flawed view of racial and ethnic history. If he/she lives into young adulthood he/she will almost certainly be notable, but while childhood deaths are much less common now than they were 150 years ago, living is not gauranteed. This article has no reason to exist at present.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteThe baby is not even born and thus does not satisfy
WP:GNG.
Vinodbasker (
talk) 03:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:TOOSOON and potentially salt, although it's likely that an article will be warranted in the future. At the moment we have a pregnancy announcement and little else in terms of content; until the child is born, I don't think a standalone article is needed.
Thine Antique Pen (
talk) 16:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, Royalwatchers may be disappointed but this is way
WP:TOOSOON, any significant and notable prebirth info, if any (sorry, but what maternity clothes she wears is not!:)), can be added to the
duchess article.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 00:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I couldn't be bothered voting, but I note the nom's reason is "a ridiculously premature article on someone who does not yet exist." Does that mean we can now delete all articles about those who can never be shown to have existed (
God,
Superman,
Bugs Bunny, and so on ad infinitum)
?
Tlhslobus (
talk) 06:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: While I agree that this is WAYYY too soon,
Prince George of Cambridge's page was made A MONTH before his birth. So, instead of waiting until the baby is actually born, we might want to wait until ~a few weeks before the baby is born.
Paintspot Infez (
talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, per
WP:TOOSOON, and merge content intoMeghan, Duchess of Sussex: as I understand it, under English law, an unborn fetus is not generally held to be a legal person until the moment of birth. As said above, the information in this article can be put into
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, whose pregnancy this is, until the child is born. At that point,
WP:GNG will apply, as usual. --
The Anome (
talk) 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per TOOSOON: the child hasn't even been born yet. This article was created too soon, and Wikipedia does not have a time limit. Let's not rush. CookieMonster755✉ 01:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I forgot, and SALT it. CookieMonster755✉ 01:20, 21 October 2018 (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.
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. Tone 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep As evidence that the result is not always delete, see
AfD for "Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", the result was keep. The child will arguably get more media coverage than Charlotte or Louis because they are the first for Meghan and Harry, and therefore be notable enough for an article before birth. More information can be added to the article right now (about surnames, health risks of going to Tonga and Fiji from Zika virus, etc.) and it will be likely that since this is a more significant event than Louis or Charlotte (media wise) - more information will be released by the Royal Family officially before birth to stave off rumours, or more information will come to light otherwise.
MarkiPoli (
talk) 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
SALT Last this type of article happened it went through four AfD's recreations.
Govvy (
talk) 15:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ridiculously too soon.--
Stelmaris (
talk) 16:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Is not a child and possibly may never be.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 21:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's ridiculous to have a whole article about a fetus. Unless the fetus has horns or something.
Succubus MacAstaroth (
talk) 23:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wait until the birth at the very earliest.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as some have pointed out, the birth of unborn children is not gauranteed. The article seems to suggest the pregnancy is only 2-4 months along. I do not think even the moment of birth is a notable point. True, this person will be the first potential heir to the crown of Britain of African-American descent, but seeing it that way involves a flawed view of racial and ethnic history. If he/she lives into young adulthood he/she will almost certainly be notable, but while childhood deaths are much less common now than they were 150 years ago, living is not gauranteed. This article has no reason to exist at present.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteThe baby is not even born and thus does not satisfy
WP:GNG.
Vinodbasker (
talk) 03:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:TOOSOON and potentially salt, although it's likely that an article will be warranted in the future. At the moment we have a pregnancy announcement and little else in terms of content; until the child is born, I don't think a standalone article is needed.
Thine Antique Pen (
talk) 16:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, Royalwatchers may be disappointed but this is way
WP:TOOSOON, any significant and notable prebirth info, if any (sorry, but what maternity clothes she wears is not!:)), can be added to the
duchess article.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 00:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I couldn't be bothered voting, but I note the nom's reason is "a ridiculously premature article on someone who does not yet exist." Does that mean we can now delete all articles about those who can never be shown to have existed (
God,
Superman,
Bugs Bunny, and so on ad infinitum)
?
Tlhslobus (
talk) 06:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: While I agree that this is WAYYY too soon,
Prince George of Cambridge's page was made A MONTH before his birth. So, instead of waiting until the baby is actually born, we might want to wait until ~a few weeks before the baby is born.
Paintspot Infez (
talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, per
WP:TOOSOON, and merge content intoMeghan, Duchess of Sussex: as I understand it, under English law, an unborn fetus is not generally held to be a legal person until the moment of birth. As said above, the information in this article can be put into
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, whose pregnancy this is, until the child is born. At that point,
WP:GNG will apply, as usual. --
The Anome (
talk) 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per TOOSOON: the child hasn't even been born yet. This article was created too soon, and Wikipedia does not have a time limit. Let's not rush. CookieMonster755✉ 01:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I forgot, and SALT it. CookieMonster755✉ 01:20, 21 October 2018 (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.