Deletion of Autumn Phillips

Comment: and/or |'''Merge''' to Peter Phillips: Not otability (people)|notable for a stand alone article per Nom, that notability is not inherited, and other reasoning: See "Comments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:N)

Comment: and create a (new) redirect to Peter Phillips.  All of the content in this article that would be relevant to the article on Peter Phillips is already in the latter article. What remains is the personal family history of Autumn Phillips, who has always been a private figure who has never carried out public activities (unlike wives of US presidents). In fact, one could argue that there should never have been an article about her.  She is a classic , that one event being married to a peripheral member of the British royal family whose own notability is borderline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per Nfitz and just as her being a part of the British royal family. I also want to point out that in , which a few used as an argument for deletion, has one example about marriage -- and it's used to show as a reason ''not'' to use for deletion. It even goes on to say about not inherited: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." I personally think being a part of the British royal family does denote a public position, but I'm sure some might disagree. Either way, it's just an additional thought, since the new sources added pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG)

Comment: meets , a thank you to Nfitz for providing all of the links
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)