Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland: This is an 8-year-old child and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability.  Move to restore redirect to Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children section.  Similar to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (9th in line for Succession to the Swedish throne ).  Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Royalty and nobility ,  and Sweden .  Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment See the 2020 AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland , which was closed as redirect.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Firstly, all the other Royal family members of Europe have individual articles for their kids.  Secondly, the sources are good.  And it falls within WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 23:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's simply untrue.  There is no article for Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium , for instance.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, all Royals and those of Scandinavias children have separate articles.  Why should the Swedish royals be any different.  Still passes WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He is independently notable.  His titles as prince and duke belong to him, not to his parents.  The deletion of Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium was probably a mistake.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain - it was likely not a mistake.  A great number of adolescent children of nobility redirected to their parents regardless of their title/station.  As noted above, please see previous AFDs of children of nobility.  Additionally, King Gustaf's grandchildren no longer have royal titles (albeit a bit more nuanced).  Just being a noble is not automatic notability (see the failed WP:NR discussion).  Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is where most of you have it wrong including the Harpe Bazzer article cited the child of prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine only lost their styles of His/Her Royal Highness but they are still prince(s) and Princess (s) of Sweden, Duke(s) and Duchesses and still in the line of succession [1] they are listed by the royal court of Sweden as members of the royal family and are not required to perform any duties incumbent of the head of state Ug culture ( talk ) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [2] Ug culture ( talk ) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  The fact that this article contains no information about his life since his christening suggests that he is probably not in the public spotlight.  In fact, he and his sisters have had their royal status downgraded since they were born; since 2019, they no longer have the style of "royal highness" and are no longer considered members of the Royal House, although they remain princes and princesses and members of the Royal Family.  [35] Practically speaking, this means that as adults they will be expected to pursue careers outside royal duties rather than being paid by the monarch from government funds.  (That's not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at the redirect target.)  If, in the future, Nicolas does go into the public spotlight, whether as a socialite or as anything else, the article can be re-created at that time.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His grandfather's sisters(The Haga princesses) are nolonger members of the royal house and their articles are in existence.why then should articles of those who is in the line of succession be deleted and members who are not be retained Ug culture ( talk ) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The criterion we use is not "Is this person in the line of succession?" but rather "Do we have enough significant coverage of the person in reliable independent sources to warrant an article?". Among persons related to monarchs, there may be some who are excluded from the succession but remain public figures and thus generate significant coverage, while others may be in the line of succession but out of the public eye at least for now (particularly young children). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And that is an approach that can be strongly questioned.  Princes and princesses of reigning royal families are per definition important persons who warrant their own articles.  Therefore, this article should be kept , and the deleted articles of his siblings and cousins should be reinstated .  Marbe166 ( talk ) 09:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if we are to go by this then Former Monarch of Denmark's grandchildren (prince Joachim's children) whose titles have been taken away and they do not generate significant coverage their articles have not been withdrawn and like Marbe166 said the deleted articles of prince Nicolas's siblings and his cousins should be reinstated Ug culture ( talk ) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house .  {{ cite web }} : Missing or empty |title= ( help ) ^ https://people.com/royals/princess-madeleine-and-prince-carl-philips-kids-were-stripped-of-their-royal-titles-by-the-king/ .  {{ cite web }} : Missing or empty |title= ( help ) Keep addendum : over 4 000 hits in Mediearkivet Retriever [ sv ] .  Okay, some of them are about the Greek prince and the remainder is ~90% gossipy tabloids, which still leaves a couple of hundred hits in Swedish mainstream newspapers.  I don't buy that we should have special rules for the nobility, it's the 21st century after all, but neither should anti-royalist sentiments cloud our judgement.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) ( talk ) 07:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Articles shouldn't be recreated in violation of a previous community discussion.  There's insufficient here for a standalone article at present.  Celia Homeford ( talk ) 10:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Grandson of a ruling monarch and meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect First, I can't see how he meets WP:GNG . In many AfD discussions the phrase "Meets WP:GNG" seems to be just an elaborate WP:VOTE . If you think that he falls into WP:GNG, please explain why, otherwise your contribution does not provide much progress into a discussion. Second, please refer to the 2020 AfD discussion . If you want to reach a different consensus, you should explain what changed since then. Third, just beeing related to someone notable, like a ruling monarch, does not mean automatic notability, see WP:BIORELATED . -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : Titles are not, and should not be, part of the criteria for NBASIC .  All of the coverage is about him as a relation to his parents and even then a lot of them are just photo galleries which do not amount to substantial coverage, which is to be expected as a christening is a pretty routine event - so they do not meet GNG by my reckoning.  I don't know what is meant by Marbe166 saying per definition important persons who warrant their own articles , what definition is this refering to?  Being an heir to anything shouldn't confer notability since notability is not inhereted .  It is reasonble to assume that there will be coverage of this subject once he grows up, but since that's in the futre there's no good reason to have an article at the moment.   ---- D'n'B - t -- 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children : Per Nom. Lacks notability . Wikipedia is not a genealogy outlet nor is notability of royal households inherited (Example: Just being the grandson of a ruling monarch is not a stepping stone to an article), See WP:BLPFAMILY . Lacks significant , reliable , and independent coverage for a stand alone article . Bringing in that other stuff exists means there might be more AFD's needed. Notability (royalty) is a failed proposal. It states: "Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable", which is against current community consensus. There is no compelling evidence that anything changed since consensus for the redirect . The people magazine source stated they "lost their official HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" and further, "will no longer be members of The Royal House". The parents of the children involved all made statements they support the Kings decision so their children can have more privacy. Wikipedia should honor this for children.  -- Otr500 ( talk ) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly agree with this.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per precedent ( WP:OUTCOMES ).  What's good for Great Britain is good for Sweden.  Bearian ( talk ) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The relevant section of WP:OUTCOMES -- which isn't even a policy or guideline anyway -- doesn't particularly support keeping this article.  It says, "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline ." (See WP:MONARCH .) Prince Nicolas, as an 8-year-old child, is not exactly "active" in the capacity of a member of a royal house.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : Redirect to mother and revdel everything.  Nicolas is a non-public figure , a child that has done nothing notable, and the only coverage about him is from royal-watching tabloid publications.  The keep votes basically amount to "he has a royal title" or "he's in a royal family", but there's no SNG that says every royal gets a page no matter what.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Several of the keep ! votes above rely on the fact that other article exist and that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted.  WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits, not in reference to what other articles we may or may not have.  Those ! votes should be completely discounted.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further comment: Otr500 provides a great reason for REVDEL here: these children are no longer in the line of succession and the press coverage is about them existing, not about them doing anything notable.  Our policies (BLP) require that we respect the privacy of these children.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  One look at Swedish-language sources shows that the guy gets sufficient coverage to warrant an article.  Cortador ( talk ) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  DrKay ( talk ) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Fails GNG and NBIO.  Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, mentions are not indepth coverage, notability is not inherited from family connections, and crystal balls do not establish notability.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect