Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Where is Kate?[edit]

Where is Kate? (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)

Article history: For editors unfamiliar with this article and its torturous journey, welcome:

• On 11 March, I created Where is Kate?, an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and the Mother’s Day photograph that followed.
• I immediately started the first AfD discussion, motivated by editors at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales who had resisted calls for including the topic on that article. The first AfD discussion closed on 19 March as keep.
• From 20 March, editors at the BLP noticeboard raised concerns that the article violated WP:BLP, which was hardly cited in the first AfD.
• On 21 March, Simonm223 initiated a deletion review, believing that the closing statement of the first AfD did not sufficiently weigh the BLP concerns. This deletion review closed on 31 March as no consensus.
• With the announcement of the princess’ cancer diagnosis on 22 March, TheSpacebook and I initiated a second AfD, which Liz procedurally closed in deference to the ongoing deletion review.

In their closing statement of the deletion review, Sandstein recommended discussion on the article talk page before bringing the article back to AfD. Respectfully, I think the BLP concerns presented by a broad range of editors suggest a strong case for deletion that, ultimately, can only be decided at AfD.

Deletion rationale: I agree with the first AfD’s closing statement that this isn’t a notability dispute, but rather a question of Wikipedia’s scope. As the first AfD discussion suggested, neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:NOTGOSSIP necessarily preclude this article’s existence, given that the topic, even the speculation, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources – a matter which does not seem, on-the-whole, to be a point of contention. Not even a quotable part of WP:BLP produces any immediately-obvious rationales for deletion. Instead, in my view, the article merely but brazenly violates the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

This article cuts against the spirit of the policy, not any quotable text that is particularly fitting to this article’s case. Of course “what is and isn’t the scope of the Wikipedia” is an appropriate discussion for an AfD, because we have WP:NOT, and I see no reason why we cannot add nots that we believe should reasonably exist at this AfD, especially given that this article is clearly an edge case that concerns a BLP. AfD isn’t a court interpreting law; it’s a community review process in which editors can exercise discretion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some editors have remarked off-wiki that the article has the signature of a coatrack article, exemplified by the widespread dissatisfaction of the current article title and the lack of consensus for an alternative name. I think this is a symptom of the underlying problem – that the article is about a media craze. Finally, the speculation can be, and should be, adequately summarised in a few sentences in Catherine, Princess of Wales; I think a Merge is unnecessary as the sources are readily findable. Given the BLP violations, I think an eventual Redirect is fine, so long as the page history of the present article is deleted, which is why I am supporting Delete. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, information related to the Photograph controversy have already been covered under a subsection of “Privacy and Media”. Further, there is sufficient information regarding the cancer diagnosis announcement following the abdominal surgery in January this year. At this point, I don’t see what more can be actually added to the main article. Do you , @IgnatiusofLondon, suggest that we should mention all those conspiracy theories or all those appearances like at the Windsor Farm Shop or leaving with her mother in a car to be noted? It would obviously not be relevant in the long term once she returns to public duties full-time and that too, stronger than ever before. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll be honest MSincccc: this comment strikes me as more evidence of the WP:OWNership issues at Catherine, Princess of Wales that motivated me to create Where is Kate? in the first place. I have made no comment about whether “there is sufficient information” or not in the article already; I don’t see why this needs to cause alarm for you to leave comments in this AfD or at several editors’ talkpages (1, 2) protesting that the current coverage is fine. It’s not really the place of this AfD to discuss whether the existing summary of the topic at Catherine, Princess of Wales is sufficient; that question can easily be ironed out by local consensus/edits until the article reaches some stability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have always wanted to collaborate with you. The article needs to be fixed including its prose and citation parameters. I left a subtle message on your talk page as well. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would say this topic can no longer be “gossip” or recent as it has sustained enough wide-ranging and neutral coverage.

Slamforeman (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, Photography, Conspiracy theories, Royalty and nobility, Medicine, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to comments made two deletion proposals ago, this article increasingly resembles fancruft and has content that’s only tenuously added (the Queen Victoria stuff and media navel gazing). Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I was debating whether to even get involved in this latest round of AfD but here we are. I think this is the sort of article Wikipedia should have from a reader’s point of view – the reason I’ve known about the several different discussions around it is because I came to Wikipedia to try and find a well-written non-conspiratorial summary of this all. I think that’s important to have, and I think (by and large) this article does that. For me, as long as it complies with policy, that’s enough for a clear keep vote. I may be missing something obvious, but I don’t see that the article violates the policies in question here; while this article could have been a pile of gossip (and I must commend the editors who have kept it from being so), I’m tending to think the different facets of the issue mean that it goes beyond that. In its current state, I personally don’t see that it even violates the spirit of BLP or NOTNEWS. Having said all that, this is definitely a borderline case and I expect many editors will have different opinions to me. I do hope that this is the last time we have to have this discussion though! Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean keep. Certainly an interesting case of mainstream gossip. At its core, it’s gossip. But, in my opinion, this gossip has recieved a sufficient amount of coverage from non-gossip sources about where she was that it should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say. Whether or not we like the coverage reliable sources gave this gossip, they gave it coverage and Wikipedia should reflect that. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I’m reminded of the Nicola Bulley article, where a very British attitude to an event might not translate to other countries. This is a well maintained, well researched article about a very particular moment in culture, a slice of internet culture we could do well to retain. Notable in its peculiarity, and backed up by enough secondary sources. doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that this page violates the spirit of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Next thing you know we’ll be creating a 100K page every time a world leader causes the chief accountant to resign by having the country pay for repairs to his pool when the country is at war. 🙂 — SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic but that sort of thing would definitely warrant an article. Slamforeman (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A dedicated entry? Erm… no. — SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t see why not. This Netanyahu scandal might not have enough reliable sources or sustained coverage, but if it did, as is the case with Where is Kate?, an article on the topic would be very helpful (and would probably pass WP:GNG).

  As for WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, they could most likely be solved by a light rewrite. Honestly though, I’ve yet to see a specific example of content in the article that violates those guidelines. Slamforeman (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Slamforeman Just in case you have forgotten that this is an AfD and not a discussion page for what you are presently discussing. Please take Netanyahu related discussions to the appropriate talk page to not diverge from the main topic here,i.e., whether the article Where is Kate? should be retained or not. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes of course, @MSincccc. I was just using an example to illustrate why this article should remain. Apologies for any confusion. Slamforeman (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and boil down this tabloid trash to a one-line entry in the Middleton article with a redirect. It’s WP:BLPGOSSIP and won’t stand a ten week test, let alone a ten year test. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Daily Mail online. – SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure so but we have sufficient coverage on Catherine’s recent health issues as well as the Photograph Controversy that gave a new momentum to all the needless speculation. At this point, there is not a need to add anything to the main article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you also consider the edited photograph that made the Kensington Palace “No Longer A ‘Trusted Source'” ([1]) something that won’t stand a ten year test? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic of “where is Kate”, the photograph and related subjects still received significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The notability, or suitability, of the topic is not suddenly lost because of the diagnosis. I do support a rename to a more appropriate title. Skyshiftertalk 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SchroCat. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete complete and utter tabloid drivel. Polyamorph (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am in complete agreement with User:SchroCat above. The article is against the spirit of WP and should never have been created in the first place. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under both NOTNEWS and BLPGOSSIP, sadly given excessive weight by media fascinated by the Royal Family. As soon as she announced her diagnosis, coverage of the absence vanished from the media, indicating this entire period was overblown by the media. A few lines in the bio page should be sufficient to include the main points of this period, which is the appropriate summary of the news. –Masem (t) 11:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the suggestion from SchroCat (talk). Headhitter (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To the best of my knowledge, I have left talk-page notifications of this AfD to editors who contributed to the first AfD, BLPN discussion, deletion review, and second AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject gained significant and WP:LASTING coverage in global media. Any WP:BLPGOSSIP concerns can be addressed via minor rewriting and therefore are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Frank Anchor 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I consider a redirect and selective merge to Catherine, Princess of Wales as a viable option as well, though my first preference is keep. Frank Anchor 12:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverae across two months (and counting) is a strong indication of a lasting effect. Frank Anchor 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We do not need an article for tabloid gossip. DrowssapSMM 12:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As I expressed on the talk page, this article is fundamentally unencyclopedic. It’s a longstanding principle that while everything we cover should have been covered by reliable sources, conversely, we are not required to cover everything which is covered by reliable sources. Exercising editorial judgment is our role as Wikipedians. This article fails the WP:10YEARTEST and does not add any value to Wikipedia. A social media feeding frenzy spilling into reliable sources =/= a notable event. One or two sentences on Catherine, Princess of Wales would be more than adequate to cover this non-event. In 10 years, the fact that “there were conspiracy theories and media speculation about Catherine’s health and whereabouts before she announced she had cancer” will be enough to tell the reader everything they need to know at an appropriate level of detail and summarization. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of a short section in the main article. An article stuffed with WP:RECENTISM on a WP:BLP, purely driven by tabloid journalism and conspiracy theories should never have existed in the first place. It is noticeable that the coverage actually hasn’t been WP:LASTING, disappearing to a trickle as soon as the diagnosis was announced, quite apart from the BLPGOSSIP issues with it. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with MASEM and others. This is a perfect example of why an encyclopaedia should wait for the dust to settle before creating articles like this. We are not a news or gossip site. Mentioning briefly in her bio that there was intense media interest in her whereabouts and that she was the subject of conspiracy theories is fine, but this is more than excessive. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep eventually though the article should be redirected to prevent BLP violations. It is best to draftify it for now until a point in which the gossip has died down a bit. An article about her cancer diagnosis might be too short right now and suffer many issues in the current article. ✶Quxyz✶ 12:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and condense any actually relevant information into Catherine, Princess of Wales. My stance is the same if not stronger than it was during the first AfD. The article is an absolute mess behaving in the exact same way as the royal-obsessed media. Wikipedia should be better than that. The cancer diagnosis proves the ridiculous nature of this article; as the speculation reports have subsequently vanished, this article should join them, because that is all it is: a sloppy, rehashed, gossip-riddled BLP violation of an individual’s medical privacy that will not be notable a year from now, let alone ten years from now. “Catherine was diagnosed with cancer and the media (including Wikipedia) went crazy until forcing this announcement.” That’s the only detail that is notable. TNstingray (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of a short section in the main article, per Black Kite’s reasoning. The media frenzy was certainly significant enough to justify a mention in the main article, but it is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. — The Anome (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, NOTNEWS and GOSSIP are negated by the reporting in reliable sources. Personally, I’m not overly worried about BLP violations from keeping this separate, so long as the focus is on the speculation and media frenzy and not on Catherine herself. IMO, there’s enough WP:SIGCOV to establish separate notability here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or heavily selectively merge per NOTNEWS. This is classic tabloid fodder making “news” out of an absence of news. We don’t have an article on the March 2024 M25 closure and that will arguably have a greater long-term effect; instead, it gets two sentences in M25 motorway which place it in the context of the 50-year history of the road. You could justify more but not an entire article. Consider the 20-year test—all that will be remembered in 20 years is that she was out of the limelight while undergoing cancer treatment and that’s all that any serious biography will say. Not everything that makes the front page of the newspaper needs a Wikipedia article, especially during silly season or slow news days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A comparison would perhaps be the late Queen’s disappearances in the 1960s when she was pregnant. I’m not sure it’s even mentioned anywhere – it’s certainly not got it’s own articles. Nfitz (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, just gossip and news, can be a single paragraph in the main article about her. Artem.G (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! I think my views on this are already quite well known; I’ve even been reported for expressing them too vehemently. –SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives”. The article is pure gossip and facile conspiracy-theory-mongering regurgitated. That sections of the mass media find such regurgitation thinly disguised as ‘reporting that people are gossiping’ profitable is no reason for Wikipedia to engage in the same: they have to make a profit, we don’t. WP:NOTGOSSIP clearly and unambiguously applies too, though frankly I’d have to suggest that the very fact that this ‘article’ has been permitted to exist as long as it has makes me wonder whether Wikipedia should consider dropping the pretence, along with any claims to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a mere collection of ‘whatever lurid speculation we can find on the internet, cobbled together under convenient titles’. If the aim of this project is to do that, it should try to be honest with its readers. We owe them that much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – clear violation of so many policies – with both the title and the contect. In addition to BLP that includes [WP:BLPGOSSIP]], WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I’m not sure why this wasn’t Speedied. Nfitz (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per many of the comments above. Two or three sentences in the article about her would suffice. Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nfitz, IgnatiusofLondon and many others. The article was made pre-maturely, and while it “may” have eventually become notable enough to meet NOTRECENT, it definitely won’t be. Completely disagree with Estar8806’s NOTNEWS and GOSSIP are negated by the reporting in reliable sources, that’s the exact opposite of why both those exist. We need NOTNEWS and GOSSIP as pages “because” there is plenty of Reliably sourced info we do not want to include, otherwise we could just point to RS. Soni (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it’s worth, NOTNEWS and NOTGOSSIP were addressed in the first AfD, which closed as Keep. Although not everything reliably reported needs to have an encyclopaedic article, this is really a question of what should, and the general view in that first AfD was “yes, this should”. Annoyingly, other than BLP-handwaving, there isn’t really much policy-wise we can point to to say “no, this shouldn’t”. And so, in my view, something needs to be added to WP:BLP expressly about media crazes on living persons. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was orthogonal to the “Is this article passing NOTNEWS” (which we’re currently saying “No” to, per WP:CCC). I was saying “RS cannot be enough to just overcome NOTNEWS by existing” (because otherwise NOTNEWS would be a redundant policy).

  WP:NOTGOSSIP is a policy already. I do agree though, we probably should have the policy amended to adjust for media fads. Soni (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in favour of a short section in the main article. This whole affair won’t be important in six weeks let alone six years – it is tedious gossip. firefly ( t · c ) 12:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An absolutely ghastly embarrassment for Wikipedia, tabloid nonsense WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:TABLOID apply. Two sentences in her own article would suffice Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is WP:bludgeoning and WP:forumshopping to the extreme. All the rational for the keep hasn’t changed in the last however long but this has stemmed from a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all the BLP issues people claim to identify above don’t actually identify and BLP issues. Actual issues on the page should be challenged and remedied on the page, not here. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recentism and tabloid gossip as per per Nfitz, IgnatiusofLondon et al. A few lines in List of conspiracy theories and Middleton’s biographical article are all that’s needed. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous. Tim O’Doherty (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree this third AfD is WP:bludgeoning and WP:forumshopping and wasting editors’ time. And at least the digital manipulation of the Mother’s Day photograph and its impact on fake news discussions is not WP:GOSSIP at all. Rwendland (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively into a section on her main article focusing on the photo manipulation “scandal” and the media fallout, rather than the gossip. I still think this deserves coverage as an interesting PR blunder but at this point I don’t think the article is worth keeping. Estreyeria (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only the photoshopping incident, its reaction, and the cancer diagnosis are not gossip. The rest is unsalvagable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales. This article is a WP:COATRACK for gossip and speculation regarding a celebrity. The person is evidently notable but what little notable information that exists in this fork can easily fit into a paragraph on the parent article. I also have no opposition to a straightforward deletion on the same rationale. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nope, just nope. This can easily be covered at Catherine, Princess of Wales.–♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ganesha811 and HJ Mitchell. This is a 1E with likely zero enduring noteworthiness, worth about two sentences in the Princess’ article. JFHJr (㊟) 14:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IanMacM. StAnselm (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP and many other comments above. One or two lines covering her cancer diagnosis in her main bio are all that’s relevant to Wikipedia; the fever-pitch gossip and breaking-news reporting of mad conspiracy theories have no place in an encyclopedia. If royal historians pick up on this incident and publish proper fact-checked accounts of it then we might have the basis for an article, but we absolutely should not be basing content on living persons off of celebrity news reporting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ivanvector and various others above. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLPGOSSIP and many comments above. Reliable sources have tabloid and social-media-copying departments these days as well, so the existence of coverage in reliable sources should not preclude deletion under WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTNEWS. Kwpolska ^{(spam me/contributions)} 14:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it’s not appropriate for us to host an article with this title, there’s no content that it would be appropriate to merge, and it’s not a useful redirect.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Catherine, Princess of Wales public absence controversy, Kategate, Public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales — The issue is that this topic has a breadth of scope that must encompass unfounded conspiracy theories. It is that breadth of scope, however, that warrants a separate article. If editors are cognizant of falsehoods, this could persist as an article. The alleged health intrusion and an article I recently read in The New York Times associating Kate Middleton conspiracy theories with Russia solidified my stance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First, it’s a terrible, uninformative title. Which could raise the possibility of simply renaming it. Most of the article consists of material that should be in Wikipedia somewhere. But with the long term view in mind, there is no reason for this particular way of bundling the material. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the litany of reasons in the Delete votes above mine. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean delete—I’m inclined to doubt that this “controversy” passes the WP:10 year test. (t · c) buidhe 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: the core of [WP:10 year test]] is to wait instead of rushing to deletion “Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today’s events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball… Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism.” It can’t be used to justify a rush to deletion, it literally says above all else avoid rushing to deletion. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Content and title can be addressed by editing and renaming. The deletion advocates have advanced no coherent, policy-based argument why deletion is necessary and other editorial measures will not suffice. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of note, no less than a dozen editors who opined an unqualified bolded delete opinion have mentioned merging part of the content, including multiple administrators who should know better: Per WP:CWW that would violate our license. The admin closing this discussion will undoubtedly soldier through and notice this, but those !voters doing this deserve the courtesy of being informed that they didn’t vote for what they believe they did. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens Are you seriously claiming that no merge or copying within Wikipedia is legal? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Preserving the article history for any merged text is necessary so that the original content creators can have any kind of attribution. However, I think the delete !voters are arguing something else—not reusing any content from this article, but writing a brief summary on the other article. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think the article history contains any particularly libelous or privacy-violating to necessitate a deletion of the history if we merge part of it. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if it did, there are specific history deletion tools to that deleting the entire history would be unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BS. All that is needed in a mere is to include references to atribution like a {{merge from}} or similar template on the talk page to uphold the contribution part of the license. — Masem (t) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, leaning Draftify but keep name Notability of this went down like a lead balloon, probably because all those who reported on it would be hypocrites to talk about the coverage they took part in, and not many sources have been covering the coverage (what I think the article should be about). TheSpacebook (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was notable once its always notable. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this isn’t a particularly good article but it does appear to more than satisfy out criteria for a topic worthy of a stand-alone article. Content issues and not liking the name are not reason to delete. The Delete votes appear to be largely based on IDONTLIKEIT and blatant snobbery despite the rather lukewarm attempts to point to NOTNEWS (which actually seems to support keeping it) and NOTGOSSIP (which doesn’t seem to support the argument for deleting it as strongly as some think)… “Ask yourself whether the source is reliable;” Yes it is “whether the material is being presented as true;” Yes it is “and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.” Yes it is. For those making the 10 year argument… Do you honestly think that a biography of Middleton or the Royal Family published in ten years is going to not include this topic? Because I don’t. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not News applies as this was a burst of coverage that immediately died down as soon as she revealed why she had been absent from the public presence. With 20/20 hindsight, it should be clear that what was covered under that burst had no lasting significance and had several BLP violating issues. Remember that the GNG also warns if bursts of coverage, and even this did pass the GNG, that’s not a guarantee of having a standalone article when other policies state otherwise. — Masem (t) 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We’re multiple months in now, there have been multiple bursts of coverage. Lasting significance has been established. Can you elaborate on the Not News argument? This doesn’t meet the original reporting criteria, this doesn’t meet the News reports criteria, this doesn’t meet The Who’s who criteria, and it doesn’t meet the gossip and diary criteria… So if it doesn’t fall under any of the four categories which make up not news what is the not news based argument? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The celebrity gossip aspect of NOTNEWS applies, no questions asked. Every detail of a celebrity’s life (of which Middleton is) should not be documented, even if that is something done by reliable sources. — Masem (t) 16:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note the assertion that anything died down is mistaken, its easy to find very recent coverage [2][3], so as you can see the impact is ongoing. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename — the name of the article is ridiculous and unprofessional, but the content is well sourced coverage of an extremely widely-covered controversy across international news (and particularly in the U.S. media by mainstream, reliable sources). This isn’t a short term, one-off event; this story dominated U.S. media coverage for weeks. “I don’t like it.” isn’t a good enough reason to delete; nor is “The international media was mean to my favorite princess.” ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per NOTGOSSIP, SUSTAINED, BLPVICTIM, NOPAGE. If it’s possible to cover this topic on existing pages, we should do that (and we can and do). We definitely do not need the tabloidy minutiae currently in the article anywhere else on this site. I would say many aspects of high-profile celebrities have enough IRS significant coverage, including lasting coverage, to meet GNG amply, yet we recognize these things don’t need their own pages. What makes this any different? JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah look! Something new in the letter jumble. What is “BLPVICTIM” it clearly can’t be WP:AVOIDVICTIM because that doesn’t apply here so what is it? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First, it is unclear to me what a valid reason for deletion might be. The article subject is notable (there is no shortage of RS coverage); the article content itself is related to a valid, particularized subject–the disappearance from public view of one of the most public royals is certainly something which is identifiable as a subject; and the “BLP” claims seem hoary and ill-founded. Second, we have had two nominations and a deletion review in short order. We should respect the time and effort which went into those discussions by not continually holding the article in abeyance. Third, it’s worth noting that this is an active subject! All we know for certain of her whereabouts is that Kate went into the hospital after Christmas and a video was released of her at the end of March. In the intervening time, the Royal family, one of the most powerful and well-connected institutions in the world, released misleading information to the press (in the form of a public statement which lied about when she went into the hospital and why), released a faked photo purportedly taken by the prince of wales and when the forgery was discovered blamed Kate for the “editing” mishaps (to be clear, this was a composite image likely from photos taken in 2023 doctored to alter the appearance of her children so the actual date would be difficult to discern), and countenanced to be released a telephoto image of “Kate” in a car with William. The Sun and TMZ (both owned by one individual now) released a video purporting to be her walking in late March which attributed to a photographer who disowned the material. Something is afoot. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 16:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half of what you said is your personal opinion, basically advocating for keeping the article since the monarchy is dodgy in your opinion. First of all, what did they lie about in their initial announcement? And what’s your proof that they “blamed Kate” for the photoshop fail? Can’t a woman take responsibility for her mistakes or are we supposed to all rally around the damsel in distress? Keivan.f^Talk 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a WP:COATRACK which will invite only more gossip and nonsense to be added to a page concerning a living person. WP:BLPGOSSIP clearly applies and so does WP:NOTNEWS as the coverage concerning the so-called conspiracies ceased once she made the announcement. 10 years from now no one would care about details concerning her medical leave. It will be reduced to a footnote in the overall scheme of her life. And we cannot keep the article in the expectation that something is going to happen. We don’t have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Keivan.f^Talk 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:10YT literally says don’t rush to delete it because you don’t have a crystal ball: “Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today’s events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball… Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism.” Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Augmentation/retitling are reasonable suggestions, but deletion seems too far. The reaction to Kate’s temporarily-unclear whereabouts was a notable, prominent, and somewhat unique phenomenon. Whether it was tacky or not, it occurred. SecretName101 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]