Deletion of Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Comment: The article has a content outside the living people biography context: there will be some works to cover and analyze the links between the announcement, the birth and the Scottish independence referendum. The article already covers, with reference to recent news articles, this aspect of the subject. It will then go beyond #NEWS to offer context and analysis
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: the nomination statement that this topic is not notable is clearly in error.  According to the |general notability guideline, a topic is notable if it has received "''significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject''".  The announcement has received an enormous level of coverage in such sources, including from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29108010 the BBC, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/duke-and-duchess-of-cambridge-expecting-second-child/5728682 the ABC, http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/08/world/europe/uk-royal-pregnancy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 CNN, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/08/kate-middleton-is-pregnant-again/ The Washington Post and others.  Quite clearly, there is enough coverage here to satisfy the general notability guideline, and then some.  If you feel that the coverage is skewed because it's "just an announcement", even though this argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy, you can see the reams of coverage being generated on other aspects of the story, including http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11321152 this article on Kate's morning sickness from the New Zealand Herald, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/royal-babies-the-queen-and-mi5-conspiracy-theories-thrive-as-scottish-referendum-nears-20140909-10eiat.html this article on conspiracy theories relating to the announcement and the Scottish referendum, or http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/provost-congratulates-earl-countess-strathearn-4184773 this article on Alex Salmond's choice of words in his response on Twitter.  Given that this is getting wall to wall TV coverage as well out here in the colonies, I think it fair to say that there'll be plenty more coverage of this before this AFD is due to be closed.  To address some other arguments made in favour of deletion, "Wiki" will not look "silly" if Kate loses the baby, a royal miscarriage will be a notable event even more dramatic than a birth announcement, and the article can simply be renamed should such a series of events occur.  I fully expect that the article will change, grow, and be renamed as more information comes to hand, but those are not reasons to delete the article now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  Even though the child (or children) has not been born yet, it is generating significant worldwide coverage, and will do for the next six of so months. The Duchess is suffering from Hyperemesis gravidarum which is why the pregnancy was announced early, adding to the notability. Betting companies are already taking betshttp://hypervocal.com/news/2014/bet-on-will-kate-second/ as to the child's name, sex, eye colour, age at birth, weight etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As article creator). I fully understand that it is an unusual subject and a reasonable thing to bring to AfD - I bear no malice against this deletion notice. This was my edit summary when I first created the article: ''Creating article about William and Catherine's 2nd Child. I am aware WP is 'not news' and this child is not even born, but this IS a 'Notable' person and WILL be created sooner or later. When in doubt |IAR
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)