Deletion of Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland

Comment: I am inclined to say . 9th in line for the throne is not really notable. Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland or to Ångermanland
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: WP:LOWPROFILE child for whom privacy is a serious concern, where the illusion of otability is purely due to familial ties (but notability is OTINHERITED). The title "Duke of Ångermanland" is purely nominal – a PR stunt, basically. See : {{tq|That person ''A'' has a relationship with well-known person ''B'', such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on ''A'' (unless significant coverage can be found on ''A''); wikipedia:NOTINHERITED|relationships do not confer notability. However, person ''A'' may be included in the related article on ''B''. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely wikipedia:R|redirects to that article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:INVALIDBIO)

Comment: to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland per , as this person has only received SIGCOV for being born, and also taking into account that they are a minor. If kept, article should be renamed, as there has been an explicit preference not to use those titles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a directory of princelings or anything else. Notability is . In the ''extremely'' unlikely circumstances that he ascends to the throne, we can review again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: A tricky one here. The article satisfies  but notability of this five year old child is entirely grounded on his being member of the royal family. Although many believe royal family members are by default notable. This is a 50-50 situation. Being an inclusionist, I am going for weak keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: based on not meeting ,  and . None of the references address the subject directly and in detail, all seem very  coverage. Any claim to notability would rest on his family and . The privacy concerns are valid for a 5yr old child. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NRV||WP:BASIC||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NINI)

Comment: How on earth can one describe the coverage on a Monarch-heir as routine, that's a rather bizarre view. If anything, birth of royal members are more unique and modern news reporting will report such an event. This give credence to future notability which in turn will result in favour towards GNG. There are rather floored arguments in the delete camp in my opinion.  aside, generally the media obsessed what happens to these type of people, events, where do they go to school, education, where does a royal member end up, working. If wikipedia survives another 10 years I am sure this article might be something more adapt and very different
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)