Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau

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. Anyone can create a redirect as a normal editing action. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Amalia of Nassau

[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)

The subject is a minor with no claim to independent notability. She is six, and all there is to say about her are four sentences. The most recent bit of information about her is that she was named. She is, unsurprisingly, only mentioned in passing by reliable sources when mentioning her parents, thus failing WP:GNG. She is not groomed or expected to succeed to the throne of her small nation, and instead lives abroad in privacy. Wikipedia should not be exposing a six-year-old when reliable sources do not do so. Surtsicna (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Claire of Luxembourg, who definitely seems to be the more notable of her parents. There is only one source, a generic birth announcement. A search uncovered only unreliable royalty blogs, not anything that would cause this article to be kept, especially considering that she is still a minor. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a one source article on a 6-year-old. There is no reason why we should have such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How could someone's mere existence, reported by one tabloid, ever be considered encyclopedic? JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , per nom. Alex-h (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - she's fourth in line to the throne of a sovereign country, and has a small but real chance of becoming Grand Duchess some day. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2020 (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.