Deletion of Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Comment: Read . And read it again
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I have no idea how  would apply in this case--this child is the eldest child of the eldest child of the eldest child of the most famous monarch in the world. Regardless of gender, this child will in all likelyhood be the future monarch of the United Kingdom and even if the monarchy fails, a pretender. This is not the child of Tom Cruise, but a member of a royal family. Their notability derives from their birth into that family. We have an article for Princess Athena of Denmark despite the remote chance of her ever ascending the Danish throne, because as a member of royal family, she is inherently notable. I would even go as far to say that this article isn't specifically about the child, but about the circumstances around the pregnancy and the child's impending birth. At any rate, he or she will be born within the next couple weeks, maybe even before this AfD is closed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: per ; the child will be third in line to the throne of England and the policy allows those elected/appointed but not yet sworn in to have pages (the child will not be officially in line until birth). Seems like a wonky application of the policy, but I feel that in this case it applies as the pre-natal infant clearly passes GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per above. |No point in dragging this out further
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per . The Duchess's pregnancy has been the subject of significant media coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While I think creation of this article is probably a little premature, the child should certainly have an article after its birth. I wonder whether those who have cited  are actually being serious - this child will one day be head of state of the United Kingdom! Not ''might be'', but, barring accidents, ''will be''. If they ''are'' being serious, words fail me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Of course this is one of the sillier articles ever on WP (an article on an unborn child? Really?) Of course the child is |only notable because of its parents (who themselves are only notable because ''she'' is married to ''him'' and he's only notable because of ''his'' parents). But as long as we have this medieval institution of royalty around, people will have this (rather unhealthy) fixation with royal families (who nowadays really don't do much of any real importance) and write articles in otherwise respectable newspapers about unborn children, gossip about little kids, etc. And, unfortunately, that makes these fetuses, children, and adults notable under . This need for royal fables apparently is something inherently human (remember that the French Revolution -supposed to make an end to monarchy for once and ever- ended up with putting an emperor on the throne
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG)

Comment: per  which roughly says "a topic is presumed to be notable is it has been the subject of numerous independent reliable sources" and histmerge the contents of Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge into it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: While I have little interest in royal families, this surely passes , . There is plenty of RS that consider the individual in detail.  does not apply: the baby is notable ''in herself''.  also does not apply: the article subject exists and is discussed in sources ''right now'' -it is simply still inside the mother's womb
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:CRYSTAL)