Deletion of Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Comment: per 's '''Who's who.''' & . All references were published on 4 Sept only
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: obviously, per #NEWS. I know that that policy is routinely ignored by many editors in AfD discussions, but if it is to be ignored then a proper discussion should take place at WT:NOT to deprecate it rather than continue with the current situation where people repeat the "it got into loads of newspapers so we must have an article about it" nonsense. News reports, by any definition in the real world outside Wikipedia, are primary sources, so not sufficient to be the basis of encyclopedia articles. Special:Contributions/86.17.222.157|86.17.222.157
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:CRYSTAL. While members of royal families are inherently notable, a miscarriage would not be; it's  to have this article.  I oppose a redirect as the title is not a plausible search term; Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children would be a plausible redirect target if it were
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Speculative child (pregnancy may end in miscarriage, etc. - in which case this will clearly be non-notable standalong) - per . Does not meet notability guidelines. Writing about the pregnancy should be done at the mother (and possibly father). If and when the child is born, and assuming he/she meets GNG (likely), then we should create an article (which will probably be created immediately, though no harm to Wikipedia will be done if we wait until the sixth birthday or so - but it's a lost cause
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL)

Comment: to Catherine's article. This is a difficult one. On one hand the child will be notable when they are born. On the other hand they may never be born because of any number of unforeseen events. On yet another hand ''none of the sources actually cover the unborn child'' (and how could they? The fetus is roughly the size of a lemon). Given these conditions, I think following  is our best bet because 1) RS only cover this fetus in the context of Catherine being pregnant. 2) "Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is likely to remain a low-profile individual. (N.b. The child will be notable under the name they are given, not this pseudo-title). 3) Catherine's third pregnancy is likely to not be significant on its own. As such, the event of the pregnancy should be covered within Catherine's article, and then split off (at the very earliest) when we have a name for the child
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I'll start with what I think is most important here, that is, |notability is not inherited. This is an article about an unborn child, it's not an arguable position to say that the non-person (as yet) is notable. As it is, there isn't a guideline for dealing with the notability of people who are considered royalty, and, there is even less of that for a person who hasn't been born yet. In that regard I have to go with the most basic criteria available; {{tq|People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject}}. In this case, the subject of the article comprehensively fails all of the above. The person has not received any coverage independent of it's parents, the Queen, or any other persons, and, the pregnancy itself is the subject of the sources and not the child. Furthermore, , exists for the very reason this article does. This entire article is stitched together by minor press releases. I mean for god's sake; a) {{tq|Early media speculations were that the baby will be born at St Mary's Hospital, London, were the couple's other two children were born
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The news coverage about the pregnancy clearly pushes the article topic above .  does not apply here, given that the pregnancy, and various facts related to it (e.g. place in succession) are not unverified speculation, but well-sourced statements. The title may not be the best, since the "child" does not yet exist, but the pregnancy certainly does, and that's notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BALL)

Comment: Maybe this project needs something like the  for babies, "If the name and gender of a future birth are not yet known, the unborn child is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law (WP:TPHL)