Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland
As in his sister's AfD, the nom hasn't advanced a valid deletion ground ("no foreseeable public role" is as much soothsaying as any other  violation), but other voters have.  Being in line for a throne is not, as I've found, a valid part of any notability criterion on Wikipedia.  Neither, despite some assertions above, is being the "duke of Angermanland," which the article itself admits is only titular. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is ''not'' a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual |''significant coverage'', to the ''subject'', in reliable sources.  This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. There isn't.  Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article."And that being said, holy heck, could the venomous rhetoric above slow down a bit?  Strange though it might seem to some, |one does not need to be a member of a vicious secret society to apply notability standards to articles and find them lacking, even if the subjects are adorable little children.  Neither is there any evidence of anti-monarchical or anti-Swedish bias, although a couple of you are sure making a case for the converse
— [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]], 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CABAL (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)