Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middleton family (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The BLP/black-sheep principle is unfounded in policy, and the "keep" opinions point to more than sufficient material for this specific family that cannot be amply captured in the Middleton (name) dab page. I ignored the issue of whether or not the page was created as a disruptive fork, as the author's motivation is irrelevant to this discussion. As for repeating the content of individual bio pages, this can be left for discussion as a content dispute on this and the bio pages. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton family[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Middleton family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are enough people who are inclined to agree to delete this Middleton family article, but to keep the other articles like Pippa Middleton, James William Middleton and Carole Middleton as seperate articles. Already an informal voting was started for deletion at Talk:Middleton family, but that has to be formalized with a proper AfD. An earlier fist deletion procedure was not performed properly and executed and declined in a short time by only two persons (with both the same point of view); there was no proper time or room for others to decide.

This Middleton family page should be deleted for several reasons: 1) The information on this page is mainly a copy of the other pages like Pippa Middleton and Carole Middleton, 2) the other pages are notable enough to exist at their own, but the existence of this page at its own does not also add extra usefulness or information to Wikipedia, and 3) the Middleton family page itself should be deleted because the Middleton family as such as a House or Family is not notable enough. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as explained above. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Stricken duplicate !vote. It's understood that the nominator wants the material deleted.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question is whether the family is notable, not any individual member of it. The risk is that the article becomes a series of biographies of people not notable enough for their own separate articles cobbled together into one page. What I would expect is a general article about the family history etc, with individual members mentioned as appropriate within that history - and, perhaps, small subsections devoted to the more notable family members as an addendum. That concern aside, the family does appear to be notable. It is now linked to the House of Windsor. This is relevant and sufficient now, but consider also that the union is expected to result on the birth of a future monarch whose heritage will then include the Middleton family. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to prohibit that assumption, saying "individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place": it would obviously be notable and we have reliable sources confirming the couple intention to have children, eg the BBC. Furthmore, we have good, reliable, sources to populate this article and further attest to the notability of the family: the BBC for example (note also the links there to that article's sources), Channel 4, etc. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought the point of this article was that it offered a reasonable compromise to the deletion debates over James Middleton, Carole Middleton, Pippa Middleton and even, at one point, the family dog(!). Those deletion arguments largely rest on the fact that, other than being the Queen's inlaws, they are not themselves notable enough for individual articles (mainly being party-planners and cake manufacturers), but the family as a whole, as the Windsor family's in-laws, do merit their own article as the potential future lineage of the British Royal Family (and plenty of news articles, TV documentaries and probably books will provide sourcing about their family background, etc). The reason this article hasn't been expanded or improved since creation is because other editors have been told to wait until those debates have been resolved, and some have actively removed content here under the pretext of the CC licence. As can be seen looking through the edit history, a speedy-keep AFD, a proposed deletion and a speedy deletion notice have both already been rejected on this article under the advice to wait until the debates on the other family members have been concluded, should the decisions there reach a consensus for merging here; it's a pity this AFD couldn't have waited until those have resolved. If those are unanimously kept, then this should perhaps be renominated. Also, the talk page question about "are we going to have an article on the Spencer family" is a bit spurious, as there is one, started back in 2002. Yes, they're an old aristocratic family, but then didn't all aristocratic families gain their positions through royal connections? Bob talk 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, which per our more recent custom and practice isn't quite the same as "keep". I'm unconvinced that it's necessary to have an article for the Middleton Family, but what is needed is something in this space, for two reasons. First, deleting it would leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced editor to create an article with this title; we need to be less naive than that. Second, a navigational feature of some kind would be helpful to our end-users. Personally I think that what's called for here is not an article, but a WP:SETINDEX.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (see below) as with first nomination as the discussion about James' article is still ongoing, and discussion about the merit of this article depends heavily on whether the other is kept or not - frankieMR (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that first AfD was a result of a withdrawn nomination. The argument for a speedy keep still stands though - frankieMR (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD for James was closed as keep - frankieMR (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Make your minds up frankly. All of the weak arguments that were made for keeping the articles on Pippa or James etc, can be applied to the family just as easily. The reliabilty, depth and significance of the coverage is exactly the same. You cannot very well argue that pieces which have one or two paragraphs in them about the individual people, but are essentially about the wedding, show that they are notable, and then argue the complete opposite for the topic of the family. And there have been just as many pieces treating the family as the sole topic, if not more, than has been offered up to support the atrocoius biographies for Pippa and others. Infact, the topic of the extended family was the subject of at least one, maybe more, television documentary series in the UK in the run up to the wedding. People must be bloody seeing things if they think Pippa has had whole documentary series on her as a notable topic. Anyway, as has been mentioned, the whole point of closing that first Afd early was because this article was being considered as a merge target in other Afds, so why was it filed again when one of them is still live? MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middleton (name). The article has been created as a disruptive content fork. It has some scope as a useful search term but should not be used as a compendium of individual biographies because these would tend to violate WP:BLP by associating the doings of separate family members together even when they are independent. There tend to be black sheep in large families and it would be improper to taint separate biographies with such associations. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the "disruptive" argument - it's not like it's pushing a particular POV, and it's quite referenced fairly thoroughly. I've had a look through the BLP guidelines again, but can't find a statement which advises against a family article. Elsewhere, we do have articles which act as family histories; Family of Barack Obama is a good example where many of the relations have their own indivisual articles, but the article on the family acts to tie them together. After all, her parents are probably not individually notable, but as the family of HRH, they are. Bob talk 22:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Pippa Middleton#Ancestry. Your black sheep theory is your own invention frankly. People intent on manufacturing notability where there is none will make absurd edits wherever frankly. The problem is not the title of the article, but their complete lack of clue generally. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you invented the theory that BLP prevents the creation of family articles on the basis that 'black sheep' might be added. The state of the articles on Pippa & James Middleton are already cast iron proof that there are plenty of editors here who will indeed collect and present "every scrap of information" they can find which merely mentions their name. The laughable biography on Pippa Middleton is already as open ended as documenting her ancestry back to 1530, and documenting what her mother's business activities were in detail while she was still in pre-school, and a whole bunch of other trivia. All on the premise that coverage=notability. And for those factoids, all from primary sources or tabloids. Documenting who her uncle is in her 'biography' would seem quite normal in comparison, especially as this titbit has at least been noticed in a reliable source. In that clueless environment, BLP violations are going to occur wherever, and the adding of who her uncle is by some editors, is going to happen whether she is included on Wikipedia alone or as part of a family. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source I cited does not even mention Pippa and so would not support inclusion of this black sheep in her BLP. But if we are writing about the Middleton family in a general way then this source would be acceptable. This is the essential difference - that writing about the family rather than particular individuals opens the door to unpleasant associations of family members by juxtaposition, even if they have never met. This is contrary to WP:SYN and so quite unacceptable in a BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the James Middleton article just spent four hours on the Main Page with a DYK hook about Jame's Hello! cake job, supported by a reference to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". I think that proves my point. Crap articles on non-notable people are always going to attract clueless people who think that citing that sort of fact to that sort of source is remotely acceptable for a BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infact, holy shit, it was you who nommed it to DYK, and that piece of crap source was what was supporting the fact you chose when you did so! And you're claiming to be sticking up for BLP in here? Unbeleivable. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep comments related to content, not contributors please. Bob talk 00:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I will not. This user is citing a concern for BLPs in this Afd, while being the primary source of a massive great BLP violation on the James Middleton article, due to the fact that despite his claims in that Afd, it seems expecting coverage of a subject to be reliable, let alone in depth, which he insisted did exist, and asserted it would be disruption and a violation of core policy to claim otherwise, is an impossible task, even in situations where he wants to display that sort of content on the Main Page as some of our best work. 6 hours that garbage was on the Main Page. 6 goddam hours. So no, you know what you can do with 'comment on content' in this case frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, he was cooking cupcakes - a great model for young adult males to cook everywhere (maybe rather than sitting on their proverbials in front of a computer screen...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was terrible, terrible damage done to wikipedia! A cake baking male for "6 goddam hours" is as good a reason for behaving disruptive and getting personal as any. We should write a new policy: "If Mick has made his point noone is allowed to express any other opinion." Punishment for doing otherwise: Dozens of longish repetitive rants from Mick including some "holy shits", "goddams" and, of course several "f***s". Have a nice day, Adornix (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the cakes got burnt...six hours is a long time in the oven....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of jokes and sarcasm can make up for the fact that you don't seem to realise what the actual issue is with posting a DTK linked to that garbage of a reference on the Main Page for 6 hours. You want to be able to express your opinion and have it count? Read WP:BLP, figure it out, and get a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With Carole, Pippa, James, and the other lesser-known Middletons (no Otto), as well as a blurb about Catherine. We do keep family articles, and even genealogy is acceptable for certain people, generally royalty. Personally, I think the lesser-known Middletons as a family are more notable than the individuals. This is a very contentious subject; every single Middleton article has been AFD'd for notability at least once, except for Catherine. Keeping a list like this would deal with those notability problems without losing the information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The family has now become notable. Portillo (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middleton (name) per Colonel Warden. This page, "Middleton family", seems to be intended to include the core family of Kate Middleton (parents, brother and sister), but it could well prove to spread in other directions, taking in grandparents, great-grandparents, &c. The existence of the page has been argued elsewhere as justifying the merging of articles on some of the core five, whether they are notable or not. For all I know, all five may now be notable, but please let's not muddy the waters with this collective article. Notable people deserve their own page, non-notable people no more than a mention in articles on other subjects, without a redlink. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This family is patently notable. They even have letters patent to prove it.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the only 'notable' member of this family is Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with GoodDay's conclusion, we can note that two afds have found Pippa M. notable, too. The jury is still out on James M. None of this seems to me to have much of a bearing on the Middleton family page. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Middletons are clearly notable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Middleton (name) per Moonraker2. The AfD on James was closed as keep, so this article serves no purpose now. Middleton (Name) oughta be the landing point for the surname and let it take the user to the individual's article - frankieMR (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also don't see the purpose of this article as I explained in the introduction. Furthermore, the information at the page is primarily copying and pasting from the other separate pages, which now most of them are closed as keep. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Middleton (name) or delete. The good-faith purpose of creating this was to merge the lesser Middleton's (Pippa James and Carol) into one article. I still believe that would be for the best as much of the information is repeated, however the community has decided to keep the independent articles, making this redundant.--Scott Mac 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, since then this has become a fairly reasonable article in its own right with information about heritage, etc (albeit duplicating information from elsewhere). The consensus on the Carole Middleton page was that it should merge here (11-5), so this article is now fulfilling the task of being about the two parents, for whom most of their lives have run the same party supplies business, and their "issue", to use the lineage term. Bob talk 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather bizarre that the Carole Elizabeth Middleton‎ page is deleted to be merged with the Middleton family page, particularly if considered that the other pages were all evaluated as keep as separate pages. She is more notable then her son James William Middleton, but instead his page is keep and hers as merge. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The closure of the AfD for James William Middleton (which just occurred yesterday) only means that the article will not be deleted. It does not mean that it cannot still be merged and redirected, just as happened with Carole Elizabeth Middleton. In fact, the closing administrator mentioned that there were arguments made in favor of merger and the fact that the article is "kept" does not preclude further discussions on the article talk page. There should now be a discussion of merging the "James" article into this article about the family, and I think it should be merged. In fact, if someone wants to be really bold, I think the "James" article could be merged without additional discussion, because you are correct: If there is no separate "Carole" article, there should be no separate "James" article. But I am not that bold. Neutron (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; as the immediate family of a future Queen media interest is high - we have a nice spread of material from multiple independant sources satisfying the GNG. --Errant (chat!) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The family is obviously notable.CallawayRox (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the family as a whole is at least marginally notable. This article is also a better alternative than separate articles on every family member (who are not independently notable except for the Duchess herself), and if this article did not exist, all of them would probably end up with their own articles. As it is, the father does not have a separate article, the mother's article has just been redirected and merged into this article, and the same may soon happen with the "James" article (see my comment above.) Unfortunately, it looks like the "Pippa" article is not going anywhere, but it's better to have one article too many than four articles too many. Neutron (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unmerge family to individual articles I wrote an article for Michael Middleton that was promptly vandalised like basically every other article I write. Flying Fische (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clearly WP:SIGCOV and the family is unlikely to disappear soon. One single family article is better than the individual ones.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge James Middleton♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a parent article, whether or not there are articles on the individuals. notable and mentioned in independent sources Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 13 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Middleton_family_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078428053"