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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lacks any assertion of notability. If one takes the infomation about her relations from this article, there is very little left. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Problems with WP:BIO Based on the information, the subject does not appear to be notable as a stand-alone. Other than her relationship to the Duchess of Cornwall, sources and info seem to be social in nature; no significance asserted. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep. Wikipedia has a different set of rules for royalty and nobilty. She is the future King of England's step-daughter, and the future Queen of England's daughter, my understand is that the children of royalty are included.Callelinea (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia has presently rejected the proposal WP:NOBLE, and notability is not inherited. My position remains to delete. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also vote to delete all children of Royals? Callelinea (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an example Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg, there the children and siblings of the present Grand Duke that have their own articles.Callelinea (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not voting, I'm discussing. The issue cannot be reduced to an 'all or nothing' debate. The article needs to be considered in light of WP:BIO and I have not yet come across anything that would convince me that notability has been, or can be, asserted. I have not seen anything that addresses the issues raised by the nominator. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be that the newspapers bother. It's therefore plausible that someone would come to Wikipedia looking her up. Article was viewed reasonably often in February 2008 - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone of you look up Laura Parker Bowles in google news? If you did you would see that she is a celebrity in England. As Paris Hilton is in the USA.. They are notable not for anything in particular that they have done, but for just being who they are.. You may not like it, but they are notable.

• Weak keep - royal celebrity enough for newspaper coverage, reader interest is demonstrated by stats.grok.se numbers - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that the article clearly needs work to state better why she's article-worthy, e.g. the infobox mentions TV host, that isn't in the article text - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1. Notability is not inherited. 2. She is not royalty, you must be born to it or marry into it. Her mother is now royalty, but she is not. 3. She has done nothing notable herself and thus does not qualify in her own right. 4. The references provided do not constitute significant coverage of the subject as they all concern primarily Prince Charles and/or his wife with the one exception of a short blurb in what appears to be a gossip column that still must reference her mother. 5. I did look at google news, and there is very little on her there, but quite a bit about her mother. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment. I just added Eight more references on her in addition to her being in the German, Spanish, French, Polish and Portugese Wikipedias. She is also mentioned in almost any book written about Prince Charles or Camila.She is a NOTABLE celebrety (I would say semi-royal) Callelinea (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still cannot see how her notabilty derives from anything other than her stepfather. She deserves to be mentioned in Camilla's article, which, of course, she already is. "she is a celebrity in England" I'm in England, and find that although the concept of celebrity is very often derived from individual achievement, most ofen it is not. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but whether or not we like it, because of her mother's link to British Royal Family, she practicly from the moment of her birth has been in the public eye, and because her child is in the Prince of Wales eyes his grandchild, she will always be a celebrity until she dies. She will always have media coverage, always be mentioned in the papers, that is why I feel she is NOTABLE.Callelinea (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, a two year old Suri Cruise (note that that link redirects) is more notable than the vast majority of biographical entries in this encyclopedia. Her ghits would simply swamp them. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that in the future she will get an article in wikipedia but if her father dies tomarrow in 5 years from now she might not get any media coverage. Laura because of her mother being Charles mistress for over 30 years has from birth been in the media, of course since her mother is now the future Queen of England and her step-brother and step-father will be the future King of England, she will probably have media attention until she dies, such as Princess Beatrice of York or Lord Nicholas Windsor or Lady Nicholas Windsor or Lady Louise Windsor (who is four years old).Callelinea (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All royals, and WP:CRYSTAL. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are in agreement about Suri Cruise but not Laura Parker Bowles. Callelinea (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering does the fact that 6 other language wikipedias find her notable not make her notable in the English version?Callelinea (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. Case by case basis here. Mstuczynski (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I understand and sympathize with the nominator's rationale (assuming that I'm understanding it correctly), but it is fundamentally flawed. No, she would not be notable if she wasn't Camilla's daughter; by the same token, Julia and Alfred wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for their son, Alice wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for Sam, Chelsea wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for Bill and Hillary, Martha wouldn't be notable if not for her husband, and the list goes on and on. If it wasn't for her mother no one would know who she is, but as her marriage received international coverage (Sydney Morning Herald, USA Today) and the article is extensively sourced, she quite easily passes WP:BIO (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.). "This person is only notable because of their family" is, like I said, fundamentally flawed - by that logic, Prince Charles, Abigail Adams, Kevin Federline, Paris Hilton and everyone else who is only where they are because of their family shouldn't have articles. faithless (^speak) 09:25, 5 April 2008 (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.