Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
• Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (2nd nomination)

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't create disambiguation pages for Second child of the Prince and Princess of Wales, or Fourth child of the King and Queen of England, or Third child of the Emperor and Empress of Russia, etc. Why it should take 4 attempts to get this page deleted is beyond me. The concept is absurd. No respectable encyclopedia draws up such lists. This is a very unlikely search term and even if readers were searching using this term, they can still do so and still be directed to the correct article through the search results. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I would not want to insult the closing administrator's intelligence by further explaining why. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Has there been any proposal to create a new project called "Dis-ambiguation pages for deletion"?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's a bit off topic, but see WP:DABFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to current kid, who's birth I did not receive notification of, nor am I invited to the Christening. Page should never have been deleted in the first place, back during the pregnancy. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The "current kid" is not the only person this could refer to. Should The first daughter of the President of the United States redirect to Ivanka Trump? And of course pages about celebrity pregnancies should not exist. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, with precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (2nd nomination). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Just a place-holder until Prince Louis was named, not needed now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT - no longer needed,and I doubt we'd need this as a redirect. Also SALT to prevent this from happening again.Kirbanzo (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would you think someone would recreate it after it's deleted? If it has already been recreated a couple times, sure, but that seems super unlikely to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• It being recreated and deleted 4 times is absurd. A SALT is definitely in order - besides, better safe than sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well, before the child was born, the article was recreated a few times, but that's now at Prince Louis of Cambridge and stable. I don't see people using this specific title any longer. For example, Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wasn't recreated after the disambiguation was deleted back in 2015. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think DrKay was referring to the fact that this has been nominated for speedy deletion, prodded and now AFD'd since the content was moved to Prince Louis of Cambridge.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Probably. But this leads to a partial answer to the nominator's question: because the speedy deletion nomination wasn't valid. At the time of this nomination, the page was a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge, and the criterion it was nominated under was G4. Was the previously deleted version a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge? I somehow doubt it. — Smjg (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete All Google results for "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" are about Prince Louis of Cambridge. A disambiguation page is not necessary. The term has never been used in reference to Princess Amelia of Great Britain or Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. Firebrace (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not true. e.g. "Princess Mary Adelaide ... is the third child of the late Duke of Cambridge ..." (Illustrated London News 14 Jun 1868 [1]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  The article is not titled "third child of the late Duke of Cambridge". Try harder. Firebrace (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  "Try harder"? Without too much effort I've given a counter-example to your speculative and unprovable opinion that "The term has never been used...". Google's a bit short of material from 1711, so I suppose I could try harder, given a good archive library, to see if the term was actually used for Princess Amelia, but instead I'll just smile at your cheek. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  It isn't a "term" - it's just a descriptive phrase. But regardless of what it is, I concur: how on earth can you prove that nobody has ever, in speech or writing, referred to Amelia or Mary Adelaide as the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge"? — Smjg (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as completely unnecessary. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for just about all the reasons already mentioned to avoid creating a useless "directory" listing, and as per the precedent of having deleted equivalent pages for George and Charlotte. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (facing into the snow) because I see a disambiguation page with 3 valid entries and no policy/guidance reason to delete (except perhaps WP:NOTDIR). This discussion reads like Arguments to avoid bingo. So far I can spot "No respectable encyclopedia..." (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), "absurd" and "insult ... intelligence" (WP:IDL), "not needed" and "completely unnecessary" (WP:WEDONTNEEDIT), "All Google results..." (WP:GOOGLEHITS) and "all the reasons already mentioned" (WP:EVERYONEELSE). House!  :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• WEDONTNEEDIT applies to articles, not disambiguation pages, which is what we are discussing here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• For that matter even the WP:NOTDIR comment is a mere WP:VAGUEWAVE! Notwithstanding, it gives weight to most of the other arguments, and while we now have proof that "third child..." has been used to refer to at least one of the other dab targets, it is hardly a plausible 21st Century search term for anyone other than Prince Louis. So I'll change my WP:EVERYONEELSE to WP:NOTDIR, coupled with the precedent of his siblings' pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: if this was unambiguous it would be deleted at WP:RfD as a redirect from a (now?) implausible search term; there's no justification for creating a dab page just because a couple more potential targets can be dreamed up. PamD 11:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Note: Related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Second son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. This now has no obvious purpose and I cannot image it is a term people are going to search for. Dunarc (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the title thing is sufficiently explained on the baby's page.17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- I was going to suggest a simple redirect, but find that we have two other possible targets. However this is not a very useful search term . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and restore the redirect, as above, to maintain inbound link support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2018 (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.