Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

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 WP:SNOW Keep. The event is highly likely to happen, and all agree will be notable. If for some reason the wedding is called off, the article could be renominated. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton[edit]

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:CRYSTAL the event will most likley happen this can be covered in their resprective BLPs with out having this because anything and everything here is speculative and likley be months before we have any details forthcoming The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree with the WP:CRYSTAL argument. Point 1 of CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The event is notable and almost certain to take place. While I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, we should at least look at general practice with regards to, say, future elections (see United States presidential election, 2012) or future sporting events (see 2016 Summer Olympics). Royal weddings may be rarer and more randomly spaced than elections and sporting events, but surely similar considerations should apply. Physchim62 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The election or Olympics are more certain to take place over a wedding. What if one of them passes away, or they break up due to a possible scandal? The U.S. will not skip its election, but weddings are not for certain. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - of course. Will be a major event, we have an article about the 2012 Olympics which take place in the same country, one year later. Hektor (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Illogical comparison. We know significant details about the Olympics, and the article includes processes such as host bidding, construction, etc. Grsz11 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, WP:CRYSTAL does not seem to apply in this case. Royal weddings such as this are the source of much attention as is evidenced by the BBC article used as a reference. Peacock (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguement is not that it fails notability but anything about it write about it for a lenghthy period will be speculation The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The British Broadcasting Company reporting about the British royal family, how outstanding. Grsz11 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it's a "scheduled or expected future event", and a notable one. Nightw 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Prince William until more is known. At the moment, it's just the day. Making it a separate article would be a good idea around a month before the event or so. --Tone 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton, which is probably the correct title (but the sentiment of my comment is the same, in that an article should remain) - we have articles on Prince Charles' first and second weddings, which were notable events in their own right, both the weddings themselves, as well as the preparation before the day. It may be a year away, but there's no doubt that the page will be updated as details become clearer. If it's deleted now, all that will happen is that the pages about William and Kate will grow respectively to include these details anyway. Better to have a dedicated page that can act as a central focus. I bet eventually, this will be a substansive article. Rob (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC), edit Rob (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the crystal-ball objections would be removed if it were simply called "Engagement of Prince William and Catherine Middleton". I could do without the vast majority of the royalty articles on Wikipedia, but the engagement of the future William V of the United Kingdom is a notable event, and will become even more notable whether the wedding takes place or it's called off. Back in 1981, the wedding of Charles and Diana was broadcast live around the world, including on the major U.S. television networks. Mandsford 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; WP:SNOW even perhaps. merge whatever is usable/redirect to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. The nomination rationale is flawed as has been adequately broken down above. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. Royal weddings are state occasions that generate a great deal of public interest and publicity. WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply here: even if the engagement were broken off this would still be an event that will be remembered a long time. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All sorts of information is going to amass from now onwards about the wedding, so having the article as a focal point seems only prudent. __meco (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All over the news in Britain; since it has been confirmed it is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL. wackywace 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the more complete Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. --Kwekubo (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wedding of William, Crown Prince of Wales, and Kate Middleton. lil2mas (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "William, Prince of Wales". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved the article other to "..., Crown Prince of Wales, ...". lil2mas (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no such thing as "Crown Prince of Wales". Please stop moving pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look at the current standard in the category: Royal weddings. Similar articles should be named accordingly. lil2mas (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, the article needs to be named accurately. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Officially, he's "Prince William of Wales", although "Prince William" is how the press refers to him. "Officially", the U.S. President is Barack Hussein Obama, but "Barack Obama" is what everyone says. The stiff formal title can be reserved for the article about him. Mandsford 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Almost certain to be a major event, as with Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. Thinking it won't be is where the crystal ball comes in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton, under that article's title. Afterall, we don't need 2 articles on the exact same topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - too early. not much content. just too early and awkward. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what do we do nearer the date? Recreate a deleted article? Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not much content right now to write anything. That's the point. Once the wedding picks up more content relevant 67.177.203.207 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, it's done all the time. Grsz11 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally ridiculous, wait until there is some concrete fact (other than it's going to happen) and we have a date. Disclosure: I have edited the page.  Giacomo  19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If talk about it is a major news story for a sustained length of time, and it expected to happen at some point, it probably should be kept Purplebackpack89 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The article was redirected to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton during the AfD, which was totally out of process. It's two people who are going to marry, so we need at least two articles about the event. Besides, crucial information from Lady Ka was lost through this disruptive act. We cannot possibly decide how many articles we need for this event before it has taken place, so all these deletionist excesses are way premature. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful Hans Adler 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. It has already been merged. AnemoneProjectors 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? A redirect doesn't change anything for the deletion discussion, and the article title can always be changed later through WP:RM. If anything, the second article should be merged into the title listed here: (1) because the prospective groom is not generally known as Prince William of Wales, and there is no need for disambiguation; (2) because identical arguments will apply to either article. Physchim62 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete this is definately WP: Crystal ball (who says it cant be called for any reason?), and these kidna thigns is what makes wikipedia a tool of WP:Recentism more than encyclpaedia. Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - this is an obvious example of WP:CRYSTAL, an article on a presumed future event that is not yet scheduled, let alone certain to happen. A wedding can be a notable topic for an article - we have Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer and Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles - and if it happens, this one arguably will be just as notable as those. But for the time being, there just isn't enough content to justify an independent article, and what we have can easily be merged into the articles on Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Robofish (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not bar the creation of articles about future events that are confirmed and expected through RS, and merging, especially across two different articles, is not an efficient use of resources at all. If Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:RECENTISM issue with creating an article for every single fatal aircrash that ever happens in the world, whether it proves to be historically notable or not, and even though equivelant coverage of just 30 years ago is simply non-existent on Wikipedia, then it can cope quite easily with creating a Windsor royal wedding article every 30 years. There is already more than enough detail to fill out one article, and that's just one day after the announcement. MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MickMacNee.--Scott Mac 14:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources are reporting it, and if it doesn't happen, that will be notable too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly notable event with very large media coverage worldwide. The article is poor though and needs work.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton was a duplicate article, using content copied from this one. It is now a redirect to this title. Both articles were tagged with the AFD notice pointing at this discussion. History mergers, if actually needed at all, can be done at AFD discussion closure. Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wasn't "using copied content", it was an independently created article which then had material merged into it. The merge was then undone. Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, we can't have duplicate articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Obvious Keep: per MickMacNee. Its already notable. For things that actually need editor attention, we need help sourcing Thai footballers at Category:Unreferenced BLPs from October 2008. Thank you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course; notable future event highly likely to occur. I daresay that if, for some reason, the event does not happen, that will be even more notable. And Spring 2011 is not all that far away, especially as regards a British royal wedding. We already have enough info from reliable sources to write a decent article, even if the one we currently have isn't it. :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all above - Amog | Talk • contribs 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per compelling argument from MickMacNee. Pedro :  Chat  15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we've already have an article on this topic: Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Why not merge this one into that one. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major event, hundreds of source just for the announcement of it. I'm not fussed where the article is, but it should be somewhere. AD 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's already attracting huge international media coverage which will only increase as we approach the date of the event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That this discussion was even brought up with a motion to delete is ridiculous. This is a story whether or not the event were to transpire. It is already formatted and would be edited as it progresses. Nevertheless there are some who move to delete constantly just to be given editorial attribution.. that is why there is art and on the verso criticism and in the end the artist always wins.Masterknighted (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep including an article on this subject isn't recentism, as comparable events from thirty years ago are still notable. Nor does the article violate WP:CRYSTAL, because the event is very likely to happen (the policy doesn't say future events have to be scheduled), it would be notable if it had already occured, and even if the wedding is called off the event may still be notable. Hut 8.5 16:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons that are listed above and are so blindingly obvious, closing admin should strongly consider a reprimand for the nominator for such a frivolous nomination and wasting everyone's time.VERTott 16:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a ridiculous comment. You should clearly be reprimanded for wasting my time by writing that. This is a discussion and valid points have been raised by both sides. I don't see you making any specific keep rationale, and WP:ATA is something you should read. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is not, and I did not see the point of writing out all the points raised above, but just for you :
  • It is most likely going to happen in the same way as the Summer Olympic games of 2012 or the 2020 Summer Olympics. If it does not happen then there will be an large amount written about why it did not happen.
  • WP:CRYSTAL does not come into it because the critical part in the policy is the opening Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation since it has been announced (there are sources that IMO qualify as reliable) that the wedding is going to happen it is not unverifiable speculation. VERTott 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - will be a major event not only for the United Kingdom, but acknowledged (and watched on TV, etc) around the world. Yes, there are few details at the moment, but they will be forthcoming. The name of the article needs settling and stop being moved about! I favour Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. David (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - already attracted much interst from media and public alike - Note also, compare the results of:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) with the earlier links of (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wholeheartedly agree that this is a notable topic and worthy of inclusion. That is, inclusion once it happens. What if they suddenly broke up? The article would only contain "The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton never happened." Delete now, restore later. It's simple as that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably also be inherently notable, although on the basis that speculating it "might break up" is also crystal balling, lets keep it unless such an eventuality occurs. Rob (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the wedding almost certainly will take place (what WP:CRYSTAL says) but the break-up almost certainly will not. AnemoneProjectors 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as I say above floored argument as if it does not happen lots will be written about why it did not happen and it will be just as notable for being the royal wedding that never was. VERTott 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I !voted speedy redirect as it had already been merged, but now that's been changed, it's been redirected and the other article is being governed by this AFD. So I have struck my previous !vote and now say keep. WP:CRYSTAL allows this article as it is a notable even that is almost certain to take place. AnemoneProjectors 18:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to "Engagement of..." per Mandsford, as that topic verifiably and notably exists, unlike the wedding. Skomorokh 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. William is most likely a future King of the UK, and his parents' wedding was such a major cultural event. A page on Harry's wedding someday would draw more skepticism from me, but since William is directly in line to the throne and a child would be another likely future monarch, I say this wedding is easily notable enough for its own article. Also, the title is fine. If, God forbid, William and Kate do separate we can delete the page then. But that is a bridge I don't see us crossing. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:42, 17 November 2010 (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/Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton&oldid=1144334482"