Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Middleton

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. WP:SNOW: clearly not worth rehashing the series of conversations that have happened on all three other articles previously. Coverage, popularity of articles, and the opportunities for continuous improvement because of the continued coverage suggest that a group nominating is highly inappropriate for these. Sadads (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Middleton[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has got no notability at all, being related to a member of the royal family doesn't make her notable. WikiSmartLife (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same cause:[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources and so all three subjects easily pass WP:GNG. They have all been nominated previously and all kept. This nomination doesn't say anything new or substantial. Andrew D. (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While indeed being related to the royal family (or, for that matter, being a "her royal highness" by dint of marriage) is not grounds for notability, WP:SIGCOV is. All 3 subjects nominated have been covered in an in-depth fashion, over a period of several years, by the UK and international press (both tabloid and, more interesting for us, non-tabloid). All 3 subjects have also been covered in what some may see as literature - e.g. [1][2][3]. Pippa has also authored literature that received secondary coverage - [4]. It's July, but I feel a snowy winter is coming to this AfD... Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mother of a future Queen Consort and the grandmother of a future King?! Of course she's notable! The other two are less inherently notable, but have been massively covered in the media and clearly meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and any recurrence (Pippa Middleton?) should be reason to lok at a TBAN. This is so far beyond plausible as to be firmly into disruptive. She's not WP:Notable because she's related to the royals, she's WP:Notable because such a vast number of sources, even beyond the tabloids, cover her because she's related to the royals. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable subject with plenty of solid sources. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Folding Pippa into this nom takes this into WP:BADFAITH for me. Plenty of WP:N with all three subjects. There are subjects I feel non-notable myself (streamers and Instagram influencers) that I choose not to nom because many more people actually do and I just ignore it otherwise because there's plenty of other things to do here; I'd suggest doing the same from hereon out. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This is ridiculous - all three persons have been written about in books, interviewed for feature articles by UK The Times "et al" and continue to feature in novels and newspaper articles regularly 175.32.82.245 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Regardless of whether you believe that being related to other famous people should generate enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, in the case of James Middleton it clearly has. The other Middleton's (especially Pippa!) have had even more coverage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2019 (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.