The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Phillips[edit]

Isla Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am proposing the following diffs be deleted per RD5:

• [1]
• [2] to [3]
• [4] to [5]
• [6] to [7]

Savannah Phillips:

• [8] to [9]
• [10]
• [11] to [12]
• [13] to [14]

Background: I requested REVDEL by emailing Nthep, who declined and said that a consensus for deletion would be needed. An RfD discussion for these redirects was recently closed, in part on the basis of incorrect forum; per BLAR, AfD is actually the appropriate forum.

Rationale: Per RD5, revisions may be deleted for any valid reason under the deletion policy, including lack of notability. Both of these subjects are minor children who lack notability. They are not royals, they are far down in line to the throne, and they have done nothing notable in their lives other than being born. Additionally, per NPF we should remove content about non-public figures. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion of all mentioned diffs (not the redirected articles themselves) of both girls as stated above by the nominator. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it is currently presented. Please raise these two articles separately at AfD. Savannah Phillips has attracted more attention (beyond mentions in relation to her parents) being the eldest great-grandchild of the Queen and a fore-runner of that generation. Sionk (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bundled AfDs are allowed for similar topics to avoid wasting time and duplicating discussion. You can present your notability argument for Savannah here. However, having tabloids write about you and being the eldest great-grandchild of the Queen does not establish notability; it's also not clear to me how you can possibly asses that a 13 year old child is a fore-runner of [her] generation. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On her 11th birthday Gloucestershire Live described her as "the leader of the 12-strong pack of royal cousins", for example. She was the subject of media coverage on her 12th birthday in 2022 and when she became a teenager in 2023. Beyond the extensive coverage of her christening and, later, being the 'rebellious' youngster on the royal balcony, she seems to get ongoing coverage. It would be POINTy and excessive to erase the article history at the moment. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    None of those sources provide significant coverage; they are all trivial reporting about a child going to events or existing. The Gloucestershire Live article is mostly about how royals send their kids to fancy boarding schools, and in that context it discusses whether Savannah's parents will send her to one. A child going to school is trivial, not significant, and that fact does not make that child notable. The Town & Country article states a bunch of random facts about Savannah, none of which amount to her doing anything notable other than being born and going to family/royal events. The Hello! article is basically a paparazzi photograph along with a couple of paragraphs about how she went to a church service with her family. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that children of royalty have a higher bar to reach than any other young person. But I appreciate that Wikipedia has republican leanings and also that WP:NPF suggests she should be allowed to decide her own publicity once she's older. Sionk (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I'm a U.S. citizen and have no stake or positions in disputes over republicanism vs. monarchy. I would also treat an article on one of Bill Gates' children, for example, the same way. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that children of royalty have a higher bar to reach than any other young person in terms of notability. 99.999% of young people aren't even considered for Wikipedia articles; the difference for royal children is that they sometimes receive limited coverage in the media thus making it a possibility that they might have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I agree with voorts. Coverage concerning either sister is trivial at best. The level of coverage they get is pretty much similar to that of any other celebrity child. Once they are old enough, maybe they will take up a career or lifestyle that will merit an article for each of them. At this point, they are just minors that go to school and have fun with their cousins; and they are not required to make public appearances or accompany their parents on international tours unlike their cousins that hold princely ranks. They are in the same boat as Mia Tindall (there are some diffs that have to be deleted for this one), Lena Tindall, Lucas Tindall, Sienna Mapelli Mozzi (also has problematic diffs), August Brooksbank (also has problematic diffs), and Ernest Brooksbank. Keivan.f^Talk 09:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore both articles. These are great-grandchildren of a sovereign, members of the most famous family in the world, in line to the throne and easily meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The only "live" version of both the Isla and Savanah articles are redirects, I don't see the need to delete them. The rest are historical pages... Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b: The proposal is solely for RD5, not to delete the redirects. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to their father, Peter Phillips#Personal life, but with no need to delete the prior diffs which don't appear to be problematic. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples for the kind of things that would be subject to deletion under WP:RD5; nothing in these diffs seems to resemble those examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to note there are no examples listed under RD5 on the page you linked to, just RD1-RD4. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, but the examples under RD1-RD4 are all things that look really bad and clearly ought to be deleted from Wikipedia. The diffs here don't look that bad to me so they didn't seem comparable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the diffs here are not bad. They're articles about non-public figures and they keep getting restored by people asserting that anyone in line to the British throne has inherited notability. Additionally, the only reason these revisions are still here is because their father is notable. If their father were not notable, they would have been deleted long ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You could, of course, say exactly the same thing about their father, being notable only because of being the son of Princess Anne. Other thaan that, he's just a random businessman. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One could say the same thing. I haven't done a BEFORE search but it seems that he's not a very notable for his work and most of the press coverage about him is quite trivial: his dating life, marriage, showing up at events, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Trivial and tabloid coverage are not acceptable for biographies, and the fact that these keep getting recreated suggests the potential for BLP harm from their existence in redirect history.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 4 February 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.