Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estella Taylor

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 of the debate was merge and redirect to Lady Helen Taylor. —Cleared as filed. 16:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estella Taylor

Not notable PatGallacher 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I will explain my reasons for calling for deletion, to some extent this is a test case to establish the threshhold of notability. This person is less than a year old, her only claim to notablity is her relationship to royalty. How close to royalty do minor figures have to be to be regarded as inherently notable? I would be prepared to regard all grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, but I draw the line there, this child is only the great-great-granddaughter of King George V of the United Kingdom, she has no title, not even e.g. "Lady" or "the Honourable". Some might point to her place in the succession to the British throne, but many of the people above her are still young and likely to have children, she is likely to drop many places in her lifetime. How high up a line of succession is inherently notable? I know her brothers and sisters all have entries, I am trying to establish a precedent. PatGallacher 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect to Lady Helen Taylor (her mother) she can have her own article once she's done something more notable than being born.Doc ask? 13:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as per above. Baby Estella is notable, by dint of parentage, but not so much as to deserve her own article at this point. Eddie.willers 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 29th in the order of succession is high enough for me. CalJW 14:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What is your cut-off point then? We also have to consider the issue if, once people are high enough in the order of succession to make them notable, do they cease to be notable as they drop down the list, or do they remain notable for the rest of their life? PatGallacher 14:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is verifiable, we don't need to draw the line, frankly, nor use AFD to make a point. We have plenty of room for anyone that we can write a verifiable, factual article that is not original research on. Trollderella 16:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This last comment is contrary to a well-established Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." If we don't draw the line somewhere then who all is notable in this context? The first 1000 people in line to the British throne (and every other throne)? All the verifiable descendants of e.g. Alfred the Great? PatGallacher 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Notability is not part of deletion policy. What terrible thing would happen if we had well writen, verifiable articles on all the descendants of Afred the Great, merging them when there was not enough to say to warent an article? Who would care, except the occasional person who would actually want the information, and look it up, either praising us because the obscure information they wanted was there, or cursing us for throwing away something they wanted for no good reason? Trollderella 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've read it. The first paragraph says "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." Trollderella 02:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I agree with Trollderella this is verifiable and notable (if trivial) info and thus should be included on WP. But, an article is unneccessary, this is a sub-stub with no hope of expansion for the forseeable future (unlesss birth weight and date of first tooth are included!)- thus merging the info, with a retained redirect is appropriate at this time.Doc ask? 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Merging is fine, but there is a common misunderstanding of the phrase "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information". It means that unstructured, uncontextualized lists of facts are not what an encyclopedia is. It does not mean that articles about real people, that are verified, and within an encyclopedic structure should be deleted simply because someone is not interested in them. Trollderella 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Besides - it would disrupt the series on Line of succession to the British throne to delete the 29th in line. Trollderella 17:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, Trollderella is persuasive here, but it's a tough call. Consider the reader: is it more useful to them to follow the link to this stub than to find the information in the parents' article? On the other hand, 29th in line to the throne is closer than you'd expect (albeit with zero realistic chance of making it to Westminster Abbey). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - British royalty is inherently notable, plus the presence of an "Order of Succession" template gives this interest from a trivia perspective, too. If she was, like, 120th in line I'd say she'd be nn, but she's in the top 30. 23skidoo 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect, as above. -R. fiend 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The young lady is in a line of persons to inherit the English throne, and is thus a significant royal. The article should not be removed. (UTC)
  • Delete Claim to fame is being born to a family of minor nobility and pissing in her diapers. There is absolutely no worthwhile claim of notability here. If we include her we might as well start adding famous actors/actress's children as well. Apple Martin is easily as notable as Estella Taylor, as is Coco Arquette. At best this should redirect to her Father... That being said I also want to say that I completely disagree with nominating for AfD as a test case or as an attempt to set precedent. That is getting pretty close to WP:POINT in my opinion.--Isotope23 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Notability is not part of deletion policy". I beg your pardon? It is well established that notability IS part of deletion policy. If you look through AFD archives you will see that there have been several cases where accurate and verifiable articles about people have been deleted because the person is not notable, we have e.g. the "average professor test" of notablity. "There is a common misunderstanding of the phrase 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information'. It means that unstructured, uncontextualized lists of facts are not what an encyclopedia is. It does not mean that articles about real people, that are verified, and within an encyclopedic structure should be deleted simply because someone is not interested in them." Sorry, but my understanding is that that is exactly what this statement can mean, it raises some fairly fundamental questions about the Wikipedia project if it does not. The line of persons to inherit the British throne includes ALL the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714), there must be several hundred such people, do they all deserve a Wikipedia article? (Plus all the similar people in other kingdoms?) 23skidoo at least recognises the problem, he/she would be prepared to treat the top 30 in line of succession as inherently notable but not the top 120; fair enough but where would he/she draw the line between 30 and 120? PatGallacher 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed you may have it. Notability is not part of deletion policy. It never has been. People have deleted things for various reasons not supported by policy. That's a shame. It doesn't make it policy. Can you write a verifiable article that is long enough not to be better off merged into another and is not original reserach? If so, then write them. I imagine that the world will continue to turn. Trollderella 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. The only way she'd inherit the throne is if someone went on a massive assassination spree. Being "in the line of persons to inherit the throne" isn't a very good qualification: the rules of succession are very well-defined, and you could probably work out the line of succession out to several thousand places. Line of succession to the British Throne lists only the first 887 claimnants, and those who have articles do so on their own merits. --Carnildo 00:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to her mother. Nn. Ejrrjs | What? 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong merge to her mother. Feel free to take this as delete if it builds consensus, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Merging is certainly an option if we keep it, and not a bad one, but what is being voted on here is deletion or not. We cannot merge without keeping. Trollderella 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not want my vote to be counted as a keep unless it is also part of a consensus to merge. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • That's the great thing about merging - anyone can do it, and it doesn't require a vote! Merge away, and save a VFD nomination! Trollderella 02:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          • ...well, yeah, I know that. I wasn't the one who nominated this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Erm, ok! I find the 'merge, or delete if other people want to delete' vote a little confusing though! Trollderella 02:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Well, personally, I vote that way when I feel the redirect and/or information would be of little value, but if others disagree, I more strongly feel that it doesn't belong here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to her mother; Estella is a baby and isn't likely to do anything worthy of getting listed in an encyclopedia for a few years at least. Per A Man in Black, feel free to interpret this as a delete if necessary for consensus. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to her mother. My opinion is that separate articles should be included for the Her Majesty's grandchildren but no further down the line. Any other descendants can be listed on their parents' pages. Only if a royal this far down does or says something notable should he or she get a separate article. I know this is arbitrary, but any limit would be. Logophile 02:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Member of the royal family, at least informally. Carina22 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Estella_Taylor_fb3d.html"