Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones

Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones (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)

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

Contested prod, query notability, only a small amount of trivial coverage. This person was mentioned in passing during an earlier deletion discussion in relation to her older brother. However the argument in that case was that he was likely to become Earl of Snowdon eventually, that argument does not apply in her case. PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Nom, See the discussion I was referring to. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Armstrong-Jones PatGallacher (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that clicking toolbar is misleading because virtually nothing comes up on Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones. You need ot search : "Margarita Armstrong-Jones". E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the fact that the peasants find her revolting and the deletionsists are storming the gates of the palace, Her Youthful Ladyship gets kept because she gets ongoing coverage in the press and because of the number of number of books that give her a shout-out, not to mention the ~500 hits per day that her Wikipedia page gets. A personal note to User:PatGallacher, I feel your pain, truly I do. Like her Cousin Charles, Lady Margarita is living proof that the French Revolution was fought in vain. Worse, you and I are are fated to endure news accounts of her ladyship's first visit to Ascot, first drunken binge as an undergrad at St. Andrews, and of her first indiscreet vacation selfie on a yacht. But what can we mere peasants do? Wikpeidia has rules and our rules say that where there are this many sources, the article stays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory's expressive comments. I understand why the notability concerns are raised. However, if she doesn't garner as much public attention as other (minor) royals now, she will later. She's only 14, and judging by this recent diff there is already enough. People of her position in society almost always become socialites to a certain level. If the article were deleted now, it would only be recreated later when there is significant media attention. That would surely not be worth it for someone to have to recreate the article completely, especially in spite of the ~507 avg. views the article receives daily — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 22:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The argument that she will get coverage in the future is a crystal ball argument. We base articles on the coverage that is given now, and that is currently inadequate to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No crystal ball needed. Think of her as analogous to a young actor who has gained press attention for playing small roles in a number of productions, and then had a featured role in one of the blockbuster productions of the decade (The Royal Wedding), which has gotten her ongoing attention for the several years now. If a young actor had this kind of press coverage, she would pass WP:BIO. We do have articles on children who played only one role Peter Ostrum, or appeared only in a single photo Sharbat Gula. (E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the British Royal Family has often been seen here as an exception to the rule that notability is not inherited. In this case, she is the only granddaughter of Princess Margaret, the iconic royal of the mid-20th century. If she were a run of the mill 137th in line to the throne, I'd understand the desire to delete. She has already gotten some media coverage as noted above. It is almost certain that she will inherit one or more titles and will secure considerable media coverage as she gets older. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that there are exceptions to the rule that notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED) could be a controversial one. I don't see anything about this at WP:OUTCOMES. This claim could contain an element of pro-British pro-monarchist bias (see WP:BIAS). What titles is she likely to inherit? PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• '"Keep"'-She is notable as a minor royal who is relatively high up in the succession for the British throne. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2017 (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.