- 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 delete as lies. DS (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 21st no less in line to the Monegasque Throne, now is this claim alone enough to meet the notability guidelines? Personally I think not. Polly (Parrot) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Subject is non-notable. Minor royal in a minor Principality Dreamspy (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My rule of thumb, in the absence of a standard, is that only title holders or their direct progeny should have articles barring separate notability. Also, Geogre's Law applies. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. asenine say what? 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I smell a rat. A Geogre's law-failing article with a very non-Monegasque-sounding name; a hasty, misspelt addition to the bottom of Line of succession to the Monegasque Throne claiming a 19th ranking (the nominated article initially claimed 31st, then it was changed to 21st); a "grandmother" whose two children are both without issue (the elder of whom turned sixteen on the day Alice was born); and the kicker, "Alice Digby"+Monaco-Wikipedia returns zero ghits. Looks like a hoax to me. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Utter bollocks. -- Roleplayer (talk) 09:18, 13 May 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.