Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan

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 Keep. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan

Nominated for deletion as the two alleged grounds of notability appear to be purely nominal posts. If, however, membership of a royal family amounts to notability then it would be appropriate to keep or merge. Springnuts 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Precedent does indeed hold that royalty are always notable. --Hyperbole 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always? All 6000 members of the Saudi royal family for example? - Springnuts 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... yeah. That's the precedent. A couple months ago there were a series of AfDs on royal children five years old and younger - who obviously had no claim to notability outside of royalty - and all those AfDs went solidly "keep" on the grounds that "royalty are notable." --Hyperbole 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember for most of the 6,000 Saudi royal family, there would be no more than a name. A few might have a sentence or two of information, but only a few hundred have significant biographies worthy of their own entries. The rest can be given their two sentences in a list of Saudi royal family members. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, members of royal families are notable per se without regard to any personal achievements or lack of same. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Smerdis! I love the reference!!! Springnuts 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent; although I do have problems with the breadth of the precedent. SkierRMH 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. TonyTheTiger 03:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This precedent, if it exists (which I am not convinced of), is not a good one. There are, as someone already mentioned, more than 6000 members of the Saudi royal family and other royal families are also of large size. Many members of these families are not notable in the least and will never be so and it would be ridiculous to have articles on all of them. Also, I seem to remember successful AfDs done on historical members of royal families who weren't notable. I highly doubt that this precedent would stand if a guideline were to be developed or if an editor tried to incorporate it into the current biographical notability guidelines. Also, the link provided by Smerdis above which seems to be offered as proof of precedent is a link to the highly notable Prince Charles of Wales which has absolutely no implications for this particular case. Even if it is established that this totally unsourced princess is notable for her achievements, the article should not be kept solely because she is a member of royalty. --The Way 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no such thing as a precedent (to quote Badlydrawnjeff in a context that he might hate), and any rule or precedent that "all X must be kept" that doesn't trace back to "all X will, indisputably, appear in at least some reliable sources" is wrong and should be ignored. I have a friend who probably has as good a claim as anyone to the (empty) throne of Armenia, but I don't think he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article (except, perhaps, as a model train enthusiast). Nevertheless, I'm not sure about this one. It's a badly written article, badly in need of sources, but there might be notability there. Or not. I can't decide, so I'll stay neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xtifr (talk • contribs) 11:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Wow, fast bot beat to adding a sig! :) Xtifr _tälk 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even taking the precedent out, there's plenty of information in the article. --Wizardman 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no free passes for royalty; the subject does not meet WP:BIO. This is an unreferenced puff piece which reads exactly like a press release, which isn't surprising as it is a ~~paraphrase of~~ copyvio taken from the single cited source, which is indeed the work of a PR flack. If kept, the article should be sanitised, by reverting to this version or earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:03, 4 January 2007 (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.