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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton[edit]

List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I nominated this for deletion only a few weeks ago. The AfD was highly irregular, with a wave of deletes followed by a wave of keeps, followed by an early close, followed by a review of the close. There were three major issues with the deletion discussion, which cause me to want to renominate this. First, a few people thought that this was a deletion discussion on the article on the wedding, not on the guest list. Second, a lot of people commented not on the article or the policies, but on their love for or hatred of the royal family. Finally, the close was done early because of the timing of the wedding.

I am renominating this for deletion. The guest list recieved coverage only because it was part of the wedding itself. That's why almost every other wedding article has a small number of notable guests in the article on the wedding, not as a separate article. WP:NOTINHERITED would be the relevant page for that. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY were also brought up last time.

Please note that I am not pursuing some wild vendetta. I won't contest the outcome of this AfD, regardless of what it is. I just want a standard discussion in a more standard environment, with a standard closure, something that didn't happen last time. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the AfD - frankieMR (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per still standing arguments of the previous AfD (with the outcome 'Keep'). Good lord! Could you not have started a regular discussion at first? So.. if I understand well, you nominated the article for deletion the first time, but your intension was declined, and now you are trying it again the second time? As I said, why not held a regular discussion at the talk-page at first, before starting this whole procedure again? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I made rather clear the reasons why I am deleting this again. The TLDR reason is that it was a huge mess, showcasing just about everything that can go wrong in an AfD (short of mass socking, which thankfully we were spared.) Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's your point of view (and I don't agree with that). Again, why not starting a regular discussion at the talk-page at first?? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I'd like some proper due process for this. Second of all, I feel that a talk page discussion would be seen by just about no one, sadly that's usually the case. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A talk page is not an effective venue for a deletion discussion. Edison (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Edison said; beyond which, you already asked the question, and the nom already answered it. You admittedly don't like his answer, but asking the same question repeatedly isn't going to get you a different one.  Ravenswing  08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, and per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Edison (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Sven that this needs to be considered again, as I stated at the DRV. Furthermore, I simply do not see this as a notable encyclopedic topic. Though there was some coverage of individuals who were invited or not, that coverage is and can be noted at the main article, within the narrow confines provided by the undue weight clause. There simply isn't coverage that would speak to the notability of the list as a whole. Chick Bowen 05:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The wedding guest list is of fairly major historical/social/diplomatic/political significance, is well sourced, and was the subject of an incredible amount of speculation, both before and after its presentation to the public. Irrespective of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is clearly a case where keeping this data serves the public and Wikipedia. Furthermore, I note the last AfD was recent, and that DRV endorsed the close, which makes this nom a little impolite and against previous consensus. Ray^Talk 05:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Utterly random list, as will become more and more clear as this media spectacle recedes into the past. Why not List of people who ate dinner at the restaurant on top of the Seattle Space Needle on New Years Day, 2011??? Carrite (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom; this is just plain an unencyclopedic content fork. (Alas, I'm expecting the tidal wave of OMG Wedding!!!!! keep votes)  Ravenswing  08:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the recent result of Keep, this immediate renomination is disruptive per WP:DELAFD. There is no case for deletion because this is obviously a spinoff from the main article about the wedding and so the worst case is merger into that article per our editing policy. If anyone should doubt the notability of the topic, here is one of many reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether or not to have this sub-article should be an editorial decision. Whether it is merged or split out from the article about the wedding of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor or not (and how long it should be) is best discussed at Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. So I guess keep at AfD, discuss elsewhere. —Кузьма^討論 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—Leaning toward a keep, although the whole ceremony seems to be blown way out of proportion.—RJH (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has already survived one recent AfD discussion. Dont see why it should be deleted. Not when considering that the List got international attention has Syria for example was first invited an´d then barred from attending the ceremony for example. Also I am so tired of people using the WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion, when infact Wikipedia IS news and IS built on news. I say Keep anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep massive social and historical significance, as explained at the previous AfD by editor Lachrie and others. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The issue of who was to be at the wedding was a subject of much discussion and news coverage, so the final, well sourced list is noteworthy. Ordinarily it would be merged into the main article of the wedding, but due to it's size a standalone article is warranted. Seaphoto^Talk 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is disruptive. The first afd and DRV should have settled the issue. Szzuk (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject has received ample coverage in reliable sources to allow a verifiable and reliable list to be created on the topic. In terms of notability, WP:NOTPAPER applies just as strongly as WP:NOTANYTHINGELSE; if reliable sources exist for List of people who ate dinner at the restaurant on top of the Seattle Space Needle on New Years Day, 2011, to use the example suggested above, then yes, that article is also welcome in our digital encyclopedia. Notability here is indeed not inherited: it stands on its own merits. Inherited notability is invoked to allow a topic which does not have its own reliable sources to nonetheless meet the notability guidelines; this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; that is the definition of a topic that meets our standard for inclusion in its own right. I'd consider it no less appropriate a topic than a list of people who played in a sports team for one year 120 years ago, a list of people who participated in (but did not necessarily win) a dog sled race, or a list of everyone who is a member of a college fraternity. Happy‑melon 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Can we imagine Britannica ever doing an article on this subject, even if they had unlimited space and unlimited time for writing? Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't have to imagine. Britannica already has 14 pages on the subject of Prince William and Catherine Middleton: The Royal Wedding of 2011 including extensive details of the couple, their relatives and guests, the dresses (engagement too), the rings &c. What's more they've done this before - they refer back to their previous coverage of the weddings of Charles/Diana and Andy/Fergie (as they call them). So, your argument that royal wedding coverage is not encyclopedic is refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, since the guest list itself was subject to extensive coverage before the wedding, and even on the wedding day itself, so clearly WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here too. Please stop citing that policy; it applies to routine news that people may blow out of proportion. WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply too because it refers to loosely associated topics, genealogical entries, yellow pages, catalogs, etc. It seems these WP: abbreviations are being flung out as loosely-interpreted one-liners to scare away people trying to make common sense arguments. - Yk³ talk · contrib 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per Yk Yk Yk, this list has received significant coverage. I personally think this is a fairly poor topic for an article, but it's got plenty of coverage and meets WP:N. The only reason I'm weak is because IDONTLIKEIT. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the guest list was a subject of immense debate, the news coverage I saw gave it no more significance than the dress. While yes, we do have a separate article for the dress (which I consider of questionable encyclopedic value) that does not justify creating a huge list article to give a listing of people at the wedding. Here is the additional consideration. That list almost can't possibly be anywhere near complete. My cursory scan of the list doesn't give me 1900 invitees. Is it of encylopedic value to say that this is the guest list, when it is only a subset of the guest list? Furthermore, I thought we were getting out of the business of making lists like this? Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Perhaps a bit of commonsense will flourish this time around, and we'll realize that the Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the Daily Mail or the Sun. Who attended a wedding is not even the slightest bit noteworthy, it is dumb tabloid obsession with All Things Royal^(tm). Tarc (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - for the reasons already given at length in the previous, spurious, AfD. Lachrie (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Yes, it's silly, but the British seem to like such silliness and have covered it in depth, so it's notable. WP:NOTPAPER allows us to keep notable and sourced silly content.  Sandstein  06:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Its notable and is based on significant coverage. There are many many topics on wikipedia that I feel are crap, but others desire this information. There's no benefit from deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep...again - Since the wedding, this page has been consistently upgraded. The list has been expanded, updated and corrected. Numerous additional citations have been added as well. This has made this list even more detailed and useful to users and the general public. It is far more complete than any media source that is currently available on the web. Thorough, complete and adds much to its corresponding article about a historic event. Scanlan (talk) 20:34, 20 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.