I was reading up on the 2024 Indian general election and going through the Wikipedia maze of articles when I discovered that Annamalai does not have an article on Wikipedia. What was even more puzzling to me was that some other unknown Annamalai had a page, but the known Annamalai didn't have one. So I decided to investigate and tried to go through the entire history of the K. Annamalai page and all the disputes and discussions about the notability of the guy who is currently detailed, versus the guy who is not. I completely understand how the arguments brought forth by other Wikipedia editors could seem misleading to pretty much anyone who isn't from Tamil Nadu. As someone with a hopeful half-decent understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and as someone from Tamil Nadu, I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy.
In the context of Tamil Nadu politics, there are two people known by the same name, K. Annamalai. The obvious differentiating factor betweem the two is the party that each Annamalai belongs to. One belongs to the AIADMK party while the other belongs to the BJP. So let me use acronyms to refer to each Annamalai; AKA - AIADMK K. Annamalai and BKA - BJP K. Annamalai. Currently, the page K. Annamalai is being used to represent AKA, but I believe it should be used to represent BKA. I will first attempt to debunk the notability of AKA and then attempt to prove the notability of BKA.
Taking a look at WP:POLITICIAN, it does says that "Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office" are notable. However it also says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". As someone from Tamil Nadu, it is very obvious to me that AKA falls under the latter criterion. But if I have to attempt to prove this to someone on the web who isn't from Tamil Nadu, the argument I have is that I cannot find a single news article written on AKA on the entire web. I'm not even sure if it's possible to find news articles on AKA because even searching for "AIADMK K. Annamalai" on the web only yields results about BKA. AKA is someone who held office more than 20 years back, but is completely irrelevant now because not only has no one heard of him in a long time, but even if anyone wants to read and find out about him, there is absolutely no way to. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong if anyone can bring up the link to even a single news article written about AKA.
Now onto BKA. Before I attempt to prove BKA's notability, I need to state that I've gone through the history of the numerous attempts by a lot of editors to create the article on BKA. And after going through them, I will unequivocally acknowledge that all of the articles written previously were in almost complete violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. It appears there are 3 times that articles on BKA have been deleted on consensus after discussion
3 - April 2023 - Reason - Not notable and Promotional
I agree with the consensus reached for all 3 deletions for those times. But BKA did start becoming notable at a certain point. But it's not easy for me to clearly define when exactly he became notable. However I certainly believe that BKA now falls under the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN as of today, and certainly deserves the page K. Annamalai more than AKA.
At the very least, the current page on AKA as it stands right now must be deleted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, so that people who're visiting the page expecting to read about BKA do not get confused, and assume that Wikipedia has incorrect information. Nirinsanity (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thank you for the thorough and clear exposition, Nirinsanity. I can make a few observations here:
You being from Tamil Nadu is irrelevant to our case, and comes across as an argument from authority. If the information is only available to people in Tamil Nadu, then it is not independently verifiable, and we can not use it here.
We don't have to delete an article on one K. Annamalai to make room for an article about another K. Annamalai. We have over one hundred articles about different people named David Smith. If both K. Annamalai people are notable, we'll have an article about each one, under separate titles; see next point.
If someone reaches the page about K. Annamalai (AIADMK politician) expecting to find an article about K. Annamalai (BJP politician), the first sentence in the article will clear their confusion. This will not break the "integrity of Wikipedia". We do not delete articles about notable topics just to avoid the possibility of such confusion. However, if we decide that both people are notable, we will add a "hatnote" that will read something like, "This article is about the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politician. For the one about the Bharatiya Janata Party member of the same name, see K. Annamalai (BJP politician)." We do this type of thing here all the time. Even when it comes to Tamil Nadu politics, I'm sure there can be more than one K. Annamalai.
I find it unlikely that after years of non-notability lasting until at least April 2023, BKA has suddenly attained notability, but it is certainly possible. If that's the case, I suggest we take another look at Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician), and see if the rejection was due to a confusion between the two people. Do all the sources there relate to BKA and not to AKA? Pinging @DoubleGrazing: to go over this with you. Again, the sources you add to that draft can be in Tamil, English, or any other language, but they must be accessible to users outside Tamil Nadu. If accepted, the article will be moved from Draft to main space, and the hatnote I described above will be added to both articles to prevent confusion.
Hope this helps! Owen×☎ 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keeping AKA (the nominator does not provide any argument for why the deletion outcome for BKA should be overturned, so I assume that will come in a future DRV). As a member of an Indian state legislature, AKA passes WP:NPOL#1, full-stop (Politicians [...] who have held [...] state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels). Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 It doesn't matter to me whether BKA has an article or not, so let us even ignore BKA. If I have to prove my argument that AKA is not notable as per "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability'" under WP:NPOL, please tell me, how can I go about it? Because that is the argument I'm trying to make here. AKA is not notable. I can't even find sufficient proof of his existence except for the two non-news references that are currently there on K. Annamalai. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We don't delete pages on notable individuals because of confusion, we edit the page to clear up the confusion. SportingFlyerT·C 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer As I enquired in another reply, if I want to prove my argument that AKA is not notable as per "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability'" under WP:NPOL, please tell me, how could I go about it? Because that is the argument I'm trying to make here. AKA is not notable. I can't even find sufficient proof of his existence except for the two non-news references that are currently there on K. Annamalai. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirinsanity: If you held state office for five years, there will have been something written about you. If you're an unelected candidate, you have to be "otherwise notable." I do not know Tamil, I had to use Google Translate, but perhaps [1] is one of the articles you're looking for? SportingFlyerT·C 10:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the content from that source, as well as another I found (the assembly's Who's Who for that session [2]), which buff the article out to be more than just election stats, now definitely surpassing WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 @SportingFlyer Alright frankly I'm amazed at how you two found these sources, because I couldn't find anything on him. I'd be really grateful if you can enlighten me on what is the method you generally follow to find references on a subject, especially considering that these citations are in a language that you don't even know. I now stand conflicted on one of my original arguments, that AKA is not notable.
However, my second argument that BKA is notable per WP:NPOL#2 - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." - is still valid, and I will attempt to bring into existence the article on him. The Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) is quite visibly in a tragic state right now. I will see if I can give it some NPOV treatment and make it read like an actual Wikipedia article. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AKA politician has an article in Tamil, so I translated that article, and then figured out the pattern which matched his name and the pattern which matched the constituency and then searched for his name and the name of his constituency in Tamil. First search engine gave me nothing, second search engine found the article on him. SportingFlyerT·C 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, speedy close, and list at WP:DEEPER. Enough now. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and topic-ban appellant under WP:NOTHERE. I originally assumed good faith in my attempt to help the appellant, but their last comment here clearly shows they are here for political reasons, not encyclopedic ones. Listing at WP:DEEPER may also be a good idea. Owen×☎ 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX I've been here as an editor on Wikipedia for more than 14 years now. Please trust me when I say that the sanctity and integrity of Wikipedia matters more to me than anything else. I'd rather not state this on the record, but if it makes a difference, I'm politically as far away from BKA's ideology as I could be. I hope that clarifies that I'm not here for political reasons. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse & speedy close I'm assuming it's this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai we're discussing here? That closed as unanimous keep, entirely appropriately as the subject passes WP:NPOL unequivocally. This review motion seems to be based on the incorrect interpretation of NPOL, mistakenly equating state-level legislators as 'local politicians', and on the equally incorrect notion that there can only be one K. Annamalai article in Wikipedia. I see no reason to overturn the close. (And to add on a personal note, I really wish this seemingly never-ending Annamalai malarkey would end. I've already had to pursue the matter at ANI, SPI, and possibly elsewhere, and now can add DRV to the list. Starting to lose the will to live here...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX Thank you for your points. I originally disagreed with a few of your points, but after discussing with the other editors in this thread, I now completely agree with all of your points. I will see if I can attempt to make the current Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) more neutral and read like an actual Wikipedia article. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endose, speedy close, list at DEEPER: as far as I can tell, the problem here isn't the aubject of the current article. Confusion concerns have been addressed above, there's no reason to delete the current article. The subject of the draft article has seen numerous postings here and there's already instruction that it has to recieve delrev for approval: so let's require that a substantially new draft that satisfies GNG be brought (without mentioning the current article or confusion concerns) and allow all future review requests that don't meet that threshold be speedied here, such that we don't continue to disrupt the mainspace article as it stands. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths] 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing for us to do here, and I commend OwenX for the efforts to explain how disambiguation works among similarly-named persons. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is the latest attempt of politically-motivated POV pushing to remove an article about a former state legislator purely to replace it with an article about a politician from another party of the same name. A blatant abuse of process and in fact an abuse of Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder If you really considered yourself a believer in the principles of Wikipedia, you would've assumed WP:GOODFAITH. I don't how some of you just assumed that I'm politically motivated. I followed due process while opening this deletion for review. I haven't made a single edit to any of the Annamalai articles, draft or mainspace, in the 14 years that I've been an editor here. And I even changed my mind about this very review when the other editors here put forth their arguments. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your proposal. You said "I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy." You also said "At the very least, the current page on AKA as it stands right now must be deleted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia" - you were literally advocating for overturning a months-old AfD closed as unanimous keep to delete an article about a state legislator so the page could be given to someone from another side of politics. It might not be your intention, but any reasonable person would see that as politically-motivated. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This is complicated. The article is about the media coverage of the supposed disappearance of a member of the British royal family, who later reappeared and announced she had cancer. The first AfD, contested here, was closed as "keep". During this DRV, someone started a second AfD at 19:16, 22 March 2024, which was procedurally closed at 23:28, 22 March 2024 with reference to this ongoing review. That second AfD's closure is now also contested here.
In this DRV, a majority of editors endorse the first AfD's "keep" closure. A minority argue for reopening the second AfD because they believe that events subsequent to the media frenzy caused by the "disappearance" - i.e., the announcement of the cancer diagnosis - should be considered in Wikipedia's treatment of the topic in the light of WP:BLP.
Whether that is so is for the editorial process to determine. As DRV closer, I can only conclude that there is no consensus to relist either the first or the second AfD, and so the closures of both discussions remain in force.
While it is now technically possible to open a third AfD, my personal recommendation is to first try to use the article talk page to find editorial consensus for any adjustments to the title or scope of the article, including possibly a merger, that people may consider appropriate. The issues discussed here are fundamentally a matter of editorial judgment, to which the binary nature of the deletion process may not be optimally suited. Sandstein 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Insufficient weight given to WP:BLP concerns compared to a !vote up / down count. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I'm seeking to relist the deletion discussion so that we can give proper weight to the BLP concerns that permeate this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're treading very dangerous ground with WP:BLP by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moon landing conspiracy theories are a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but they are notable, which makes the topic encyclopedic. The Where is Kate? article isn't about the location of the Princess. It is about those unsubstantiated celebrity rumours flying around during the past few weeks. This gossip has received enough significant coverage to make the topic notable. WP:NOTGOSSIP tells us that Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography (emphasis mine). This one, however, warrants inclusion. Even gossip, if significantly covered, can achieve notability. Owen×☎ 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what specifically is the concern? Which parts of the article are treading into dangerous BLP grounds? TheSpacebook (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin provided a detailed explanation for the close, which seems to correctly reflect consensus. If the participants in that AfD did not give sufficient weight to WP:BLP concerns, that is not something the closer should overrule with a supervote. Personally, I do not see any clear BLP violation here. The article is thoroughly sourced, and maintains a neutral tone about the subject, correctly attributing rumours to the RS that quoted them, as required by our policy. Either way, we're not here to relitigate the case, only to determine if the close reflected participants' consensus, which it did. Owen×☎ 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closing decision. Uses RS throughout. The specific BLP concerns have not been made clear. The conspiracy theories/rumours are clearly sectioned off and uses RS to show they are unsubstantiated. This is not just ‘internet or tabloid gossip’ as highly reputable international sources have discussed it and the impact of it. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per OwenX, the closer weighed the consensus correctly, and there were no real BLP violations that hadn't been already dealt with (tabloids, for instance, had long been removed). ——Serial Number 54129 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Kate Middleton's temporarily less visible after abdominal surgery and the media have done their collective nuts about it. In my view there are two things to review here. First is the decision not to delete our article about it, which I endorse in reluctant recognition of the consensus, and the second is the bizarre decision to call that article "Where is Kate?", about which I what the actual heck are we thinking?—S MarshallT/C 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the articles title, the first 2 cites are multi-cites which are reliable sources which use the term. Also, there is a discussion on the talk page about it. I don’t understand why the articles title should be discussed in a deletion review. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a rule saying we can't.—S MarshallT/C 17:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point, well made. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the AfD discussion and talk page suggest, there is likely a majority in favour of renaming/restructuring the article, but nobody has been bold enough to begin a formal page move request, likely because there is no clear alternative article title. Kategate, Mother's Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and Conspiracy theories about the absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales each has drawbacks. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With 19 different redirects to the article, I daresay the specific title chosen for the page is more a matter of stylistic preference than of any practical encyclopedic importance. Owen×☎ 17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some redirects redirect to the photograph, some are alternative punctuation and some I’m confused by (for example Health and appearance of Catherine, Princess of Wales). Some label it as a scandal, which can be disputed. Some titles label it a ‘controversy’, which can also be disputed as the main controversial thing is the manipulated photograph, with her absence being commented on, but still uncontroversial. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our inclusion criteria for redirects are fairly lax, and rightly so. Owen×☎ 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could something like 2024 suspicions and rumours about Catherine, Princess of Wales's health fit or something else in that style work. ✶Quxyz✶ 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The title might not be great but the content it self is encyclopedic and respectful. Whilst it makes reference to the tabloid fodder (as most wiki articles about conspiracy theories do) it doesn't treat them as fact.
That being said, I think the article should have some parts rewritten to focus more on debunking the conspiracy theories and making reference to the harm uncontrolled media speculation does. Slamforeman (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per previous comments. Skyshiftertalk 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. (I was a merge !voter) The supposed grounds for the review are very strange - i don't see any "up/down count". The vague hand-waving around BLP and NOTGOSSIP is equally strange, particularly given the very good description of how NOTNEWS was treated. I thought it was actually a careful and thoughtful closing (and I would have preferred a different outcome). DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Excellent closing statement, no evidence that a relist would move the needle. BLP concerns are not a bigger concern than recentism, because we're dealing with a very public figure and the entire brouhaha is about her trying to be less public and the public, through their designated journalistic lackeys, not having any of it. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either endorse or overturn to no consensus (noting both have the same end result for practical purposes). Strong policy-based arguments were made to keep the article, and I agree with OwenX that any BLP concerns were unfounded. Delete/merge voters made a valid claim regarding whether this has/will have a lasting impact but there clearly was not consensus to not keep the article. Due to the high attendance at the AFD, I do not think a relist would impact the discussion. Therefore I oppose relisting. FrankAnchor 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to endorse keep closure of first AFD for reasons I stated above and procedural close this DRV as new information has come to light possibly affecting whether this article should be kept. The best place for that discussion is a new (3rd) AFD, not continued discussion here. FrankAnchor 14:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I very strongly oppose relisting the 2nd AFD as it turned into a trainwreck of discussions involving the article itself and proposed procedural closes due to the in-process DRV. The much better option is to get all of the old discussions (including this one) behind us and start fresh with a BRAND NEW deletion discussion. FrankAnchor 02:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus, relist, or resend to AfD: I created the article, nominated it for AfD, and eventually !voted Keep:
As the closing comment to the AfD article suggests, a thorny issue here is that there isn't really disagreement (on the whole) about the article's coverage in reliable sources, though there has been some disagreement about whether those sources are secondary. Moreover, the disagreement concerns whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all – that is, the scope of the project, and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP.
Tellingly, this deletion review results from a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate Middleton, in which responding editors with particular interest in BLP policy feel overwhelmingly that the article doesn't conform with said policy, and that this was overlooked or not clearly articulated in the AfD discussion, in which there were no !votes or comments that directly cited WP:BLP outside my nomination statement, except the rather memorable Delete !vote that this [is a] grotesque BLP-violating festival of WP:NOTNEWS tabloid indulgence. In hindsight, I would have liked to inform the noticeboard of the article and topic from the outset, and I also don't know whether I would have voted differently had the BLP argument (separate from NOTNEWS) been better articulated.
While I thought the nomination statement was graciously well-worded and clearly the product of much reflection, I was also somewhat surprised that the AfD closed as Keep rather than No Consensus, and the closing sentences, in particular, seemed off to me: the keep editors, collectively acknowledged NOTNEWS, but differed in their view of whether the amount and duration of coverage warranted an exception. I felt that the position that reached consensus in this discussion is that it did.
Finally, and importantly, I think the AfD did have a thread of evolving discussion, so a relist might have helped to achieve consensus. The other thing is that this is an evolving news story, and editors contributing at the start of the discussion would have had a different perspective than those towards the end. The discussion at the BLP noticeboard, and a bold bid from the DRV nominator to redirect the article two days after the AfD close, finally show that even if the AfD did reach consensus, this isn't a consensus that is being respected. We have comments on the noticeboard like:
It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all
the standalone article is a mockery of WP' BLP concerns, which pretty much override everything
This entire side article seems like a major BLP violation ... The worst kind of gossip. The people arguing to keep it seem like gossip mongers themselves, and
that is one of the worst articles I've ever seen and should have been nuked without prejudice. The AfD is a disgrace.
With all this in mind, I recommend overturning the closure and closing as no consensus, relisting, or resending to AfD. I appreciate there isn't much in WP:DRVPURPOSE to support this perspective, but given the dissatisfaction that has resulted from the closure and the response of the noticeboard, coupled with the uniqueness of the topic and the fact that the discussion has centred so much around Wikipedia's purpose rather than the individual topic, I wave my hands with the magic dust that is WP:IAR. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also partially concerned that the BLP noticeboard prompted an editor to amendWP:NOTNEWSto tamp down on this sort of embarrassment in future (source). Though the amendment is minor and I don't think it would have changed anyone's !votes, it's not in a collaborative spirit for a group of editors to feel that their concerns were not articulated in an AfD on a topic receiving considerable news coverage, then amend the policy that formed the basis of the discussion so that future AfDs might come closer to their desired result. It seems like the best possible result out of this situation is to allow said group of editors to express their concerns at an AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skimming that discussion and not seeing a whole lot of sound policy reasoning articulated there. I'm seeing a whole lot of emotional reasoning attempting to use policy to achieve a desired result, combined with some really bad takes: newspapers aren't secondary sources? Seriously? Regardless, I wouldn't let other peoples' overreactions either goad or guilt you into doing anything; the community spoke pretty cogently in the AfD actually. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The epitome of that is one of the (currently) latter posts which says "I don't think there's a point in the Deletion Review, since clearly the close with that AfD was really no other way to go with how the discussion itself played out. No consensus at worst. But the problem is that all the editors who voted Keep in said discussion, especially with their extremely poor reasoning, should be ashamed of themselves."[3]DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
newspapers aren't secondary sources? Seriously? - Take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Also per WP:PRIMARY (the policy): For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. See also note d of WP:PRIMARY. Or see: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 . Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally about breaking news or, at least, immediate news reporting. Actually, most news media is a mixture of primary and secondary even within the same article. For the type of sourcing that's in this article it's almost all secondary. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. Beat me to it. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is about news reporting, yes. And the distinction between primary and secondary sources is usually far muddier than people might wish. But I was merely responding to the blanket "newspapers aren't secondary sources?". No, very often they are not. Or rather the articles aren't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, however, cut short my quote from Donnelly & Norton. It should be: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources. They are considered to be inferior to documents of record because they are held to contain various degrees of interpretation, subjectivity and bias. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Very often" is the problem. I think editors making broad statements about newspapers being primary sources is what's inappropriate. It's actually a narrow circumstance when that's the case. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrow" is rather debatable. But this is DRV, and I'm sidetracking. I'll happily discuss how narrow reporting of current events is in a newspaper on my talk page or yours. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN9781138301559.
Overturn, endorse or Close as moot under WP:SNOW per my later comment (!vote change). The most important thing is that this article should be sent back to AfD, and all roads (endorse, overturn, close as moot) seem to be leading there. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I thought that was a very well-reasoned close, and would have come to a similar conclusion myself. I'm actually surprised those advocating deletion didn't make stronger arguments, considering I recognised a few of those names - and let me be clear, I'm not saying those arguments were invalid, just that they did not really counteract the keep !arguments in the way I might have expected that would have been needed in order to close this against consensus. SportingFlyerT·C 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus The opposing arguments were based on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP, all of which are policies. An article with running commentary on every move a living person makes is a violation of WP:BLP. That alone was enough to override most of the arguments put forward by the group who was in favor of keeping the page. I don't see any point in deleting the article at this juncture, since I'm pretty sure some of the users involved would then start adding all that questionable content to the main page; additionally, I do not see a new AfD going anywhere as long as there's hysteria in the media about her whereabouts. However, closing that discussion as 'no consensus' would be an acknowledgment of the fact that the "delete" votes were based on our policies. Keivan.fTalk 01:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open the AfD Given her announcement that she has been diagnosed with cancer, there are multiple people on the article's talk page that find the whole thing to be insensitive or unnecessary. Even the article's major contributor is asking for policy-based input. It's better to have a discussion now; this is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment I just wanted to drop by to acknowledge I am aware of the discussion here, and continue to stand by my close. Thanks. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: while there were vote counters present at the AfD (which aren't supposed to happen but this is what occurs for a popular AfD) the closer did an excellent job at comparing the arguments made on both sides and compared the strength and reasoning of both arguments in making their decision. A relist won't affect that, and no suitable arguments for BLP concerns where made (either there or here for that matter). Specific concerns can be challenged on the page itself or brought up on the article's talk page. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths] 12:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the cancer diagnosis all speculation should be deleted from this Article. Jaymailsays ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, Jaymailsays. Speculation was in RS'es, it's part of the timeline of the event. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list given that the reason for her not being there has now been released [4], I believe this AFD needs more input about the BLP concerns, particularly around all the incorrect speculation. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list per Joseph2302. The situation has completely changed now, though I'm not sure we should ever have been asking the question here. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close the deletion review and move all comments to the new AfD so we can have a centralised discussion. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, Close the second AfD discussion as premature and continue the proper process here. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. New AfD overtakes. This is moot. The new AfD is not speedily closable. It is new, but it is well underway. The suggested alternative of closing the AfD and directing interested editors to this deletion review would be an imperious action that would lead to unnecessary conflict and confusion, and open the door to various grievances. There are no such problems when a DRV is closed: The editors who frequent this venue can see the bigger picture. The editors pouring in to comment in the AfD can not see the bigger picture. The excess energy that exists now can not be contained by procedural arguments. It's more effective and efficient to let everyone share their thoughts based on the new information in the new AfD than to discuss how and why the AfD was procedurally closed and on what basis. And if the AfD is not closed, there is no basis for this DRV to continue. I thank the closer of the AfD that was reviewed here for his close.—Alalch E. 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The reason for opening the review just reads like a re-litigation of arguments brought forth during the AfD. The closing statement was very thoughtful and had a very logical and policy-based reasoning. Also seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING from the user who requested the review to open a DRV and then open a second AfD nomination while their current DRV is still open. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC) My bad, I misread who opened the DRV. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make a declaratory endorsement of Xymmax's respectable close is understandable, but it doesn't do anyhting vis-a-vis the encyclopedia. It's just declaratory. We've got major mootness going on. There's a new AfD, and the new AfD will decide whether to keep, delete or employ an ATD. —Alalch E. 21:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally close second AfD until this DRV is concluded, per Jclemens. This second AfD comes across as vexatious litigation, especially seeing the persistent WP:BLUDGEONing going on there. If the new AfD isn't closed, it is more than likely to end up in DRV again, based on the impassioned responses there. Would we then allow a third AfD to usurp the second DRV? This should end here on 28 March, as per our established process. Owen×☎ 21:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can close the second AfD right away citing the second bullet of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Process interaction. We have a literal policy-level norm against the second AfD that is now ongoing. But it should not be done. We have a policy suggesting that it should, but common sense suggests the opposite. —Alalch E. 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we can see here, common sense can differ greatly even between experienced editors. The issue is disputed enough that I'd rather see consensus appear than act unilaterally. But if the current brouhaha is any indication, this second AfD will not definitively decide anything, as it will be instantly contested in DRV, again. Owen×☎ 22:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the new AfD should be closed. We cannot have two deletion discussions on the same article open at the same time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless DRV The close was proper, because there was no other way to close that original AfD. It's just that the editors involved in that AfD were incredibly shameful and blatant ignorers of WP:BLP and WP:NOT (particular WP:GOSSIP) policy by trying to inappropriately use GNG as a bludgeon to ignore BLP violating articles that have nothing to do with notability. That policy-violating stance was made very clear in the second AfD that was opened and the consensus that was very clearly forming there on the article needing to be deleted. So, again, this DRV is a waste of time. The original close was right, it was the editors involved in the discussion that were wrong and failed at following long-standing Wikipedia policy. A shame to all of them and their capability as Wikipedia editors. SilverserenC 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that's an endorse then. DeCausa (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An "endorse" that all Keep voters failed at being a Wikipedia editor, sure. SilverserenC 23:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this is moot since the AfD has been procedurally closed in light of the DRV. Simonm223 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a new one should be started the moment this DRV is over. It seems quite clear from what was procedurally closed that the broader Wikipedia community has a much changed opinion on the article than the original smaller group that was actively ignoring policy. SilverserenC 23:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
71 editors posted to the 1st AfD, 45 to the recently closed second one. DeCausa (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
71 editors in 8 days; 45 in 4 hours. Simonm223 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the thread to make relevant responses. I replied to this statement: "the broader Wikipedia community has a much changed opinion on the article than the original smaller group". I was obviously pointing out the error in the statement that it was a "much smaller group". Your reply was a non-sequitur. DeCausa (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "ignoring policy" is actually editors having a different interpretation of policy to you. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Wow. DFlhb (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much endorse this opinion (and therefore vote to close this and move discussion to the second AfD). Loki (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the assertion that my capabilities as a Wikipedia editor and I need to be shamed. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 09:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wish that Liz had not closed the second AfD. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and procedural issues should be weighed against a vibrant, ongoing, and useful discussion. This DRV is *not* the same thing - as Silverseren says, the close was clearly correct for that discussion and has thus been roundly endorsed. But the second AfD was opened for good reason - because a massive new piece of information has recontextualized the entire existence of the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, start over I agree that it's bad keep arguments rather than a bad close, and given that the AfD ran before today's announcement, a new deletion discussion should commence. Preferably after everyone involved reads WP:BLPGOSSIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu A new deletion discussion had commenced. An AfD ran not before, but after yesterday's announcement. It was not the AfD that is reviewed in this deletion review but a second AfD, started yesterday. That new deletion discussion was closed. I don't think that you are aware of this. You probably only know about this deletion review and about the first AfD, judging by your comments. —Alalch E. 06:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close (keep). A deletion discussion for this article was literally just conducted and the result was keep. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (not sure of the meaning of these close and endorse comments are --sorry, I'm just used to keep, merge, and delete) As said on the previous discussion, it evolved into a well-sourced article raising issues and about a topic that got a lot of news coverage. There's too much work in it to just delete the lot. At worst, merge it to the KM article. BalletForCattle (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally close this DRV, re-open the second AFD, and call it a day here. nableezy - 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, perhaps speedily, and reopen discussion at AfD or elsewhere about moving and/or rewriting the article. I see a clear consensus above, with which I agree, that the close was a correct summary of the discussion. Though some feel the discussion, while voluminous, was problematic itself. On the other hand, new information has changed the context of the article greatly in the last 24 hours and it makes no sense to wait a full seven days here before we move on to the inevitable next stage in this hullabaloo. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment Can we just endorse the result of the first AfD and reopen the second AfD that was started after the announcement of her cancer diagnosis? I cannot believe we are stuck with a deletion review that's not going to change any outcomes anyway. There were multiple users who argued for the article's deletion in the second AfD and their voices were suppressed by cack handedly closing the discussion because of this ongoing review. Keivan.fTalk 04:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second AFD was a hot mess and I think it is chaotic to launch a new AFD while the previous AFD is being debated. After this DRV is closed, which can happen early, you know, depending on its outcome, the second AFD can be reopened or, even better, a fresh discussion launched. But it was disruptive to have multiple open discussions on the same article happening in different places. This is not bureaucracy, it's just having an order and process to decision-making and not letting emotion override policy. LizRead!Talk! 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. We're often called upon to decide between bold action and policy. In this case, the two happened to coincide. You did what had to be done. Owen×☎ 08:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Liz - I agree that it was unfortunate to have two discussions open simultaneously on the same article. To me, the clearer path would have been to close the DRV, since there was a reasonably clear consensus here, and allow the second AfD to move forward, but there's obviously room for reasonable disagreement. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the second AfD was indeed a hot mess, given how this deletion review has played out and is continuing to play out, I can't see any way this story will continue except through a third AfD. You were right to close the second AfD, Liz, and with the passage of time, at least any third AfD will have a better chance of not letting emotion override policy. Nevertheless, unless WP:RENOM is enforced, it does feel somewhat like we're waiting more days – whether by bureaucracy or order and process – for a fresh AfD, at which point all discussion here will be rendered moot anyway, all the while a substantial number of editors believe an article continues to exist with BLP violations that were not mentioned in the first AfD and have not been addressed by subsequent edits. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and endorse close of second AfD It was frankly disruptive behaviour and forum shopping to open a second AfD while this deletion review discussion was ongoing. The close of the original AfD correctly assessed consensus. Raising BLP is a red herring. Our BLP policies are designed to prevent unsourced content about living people. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll all wait til 28th for this deletion review to be over and then start the third AfD that the community clearly wants and is clearly appropriate in the circumstances. I wish that we Wikipedians could adapt to change at a more reasonable speed than this.—S MarshallT/C 09:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question is why was this pointless, time-wasting deletion review started? AusLondonder (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because my understanding was that is what I had to do to get that BLP violating mess actioned in less than three months. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I was on the delete side of the original AfD and I maintain that view, but my personal opinion is not what matters here. What matters is that the closer's assessment of consensus was valid. Also endorse close of second AfD: I fail to see how the announcement of her cancer diagnosis affects the article's notability. The consensus was that discussion of speculation and photo editing met our notability requirements yesterday, and notability is not temporary. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on all of you who have tried to exert your own hotsy-totsy importance over the Princess of Wales by abusing Wikipedia's frequency-notability policy to create and argue for the preservation of a horrific article! The article must be deleted if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With the article in question, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. Shame on you who did that! One short paragraph about her illness in our article on the princess must now suffice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Regardless of which way this particular discussion goes, SergeWoodzing, be assured that at least no-one's going to take the blindest bit of notice of this nonsensical crackpottery. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That shameful and nonsensical crackpottery will be excluded from the relevant article, and all articles if I may say. Will be glad to see you in the forefront of such efforts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we snow-close as Endorse? There is only one outstanding Overturn !vote, my own, and also noting Relist !votes, most contributors, myself included, are eager to play out a third AfD in light of the diagnosis announcement and the WP:BLP concerns not expressed in the first AfD. At this point, this DRV feels like an unnecessary bureaucratic hold-up, whether or not the procedural close of the second AfD was correct. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't. An uninvolved person could.—S MarshallT/C 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close this review as moot due to being overtaken by external events. At this point, it doesn't matter much whether the prior deletion discussion(s) were closed appropriately or not. The information available about the topic has changed substantially, and we should be discussing what to do in light of the subsequent events, not whether Wikipedia's consensus assessment process was conducted well or not in the past. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn That there was vote counting in the close is explicit, with discussion of "majority" and "plurality", and the summing up at the end was that the there was a consensus in the majority about NOTNEWS. But in actual NOT-vote counting, we are not concerned with a consensus among the majority, we are concerned about a consensus among all participants, and that there was no consensus on RECENTISM and the intersection with BLP is at least defensible given the discussion, while this vote counting close is not. (Also, reread the comment above by the article creator.)
Moveover, the article was based on the premise of a mystery concerning a putative missing person ("Where is Kate?"), which at least, implies the potential for criminality. The encyclopedia's suggestion of a missing person highly implicates BLP, which was given short shrift by the closer.
Now, of course, as is usual in the midst of something, new information has come to light, suggesting nothing nefarious is going on, but rather a personal, familial, potential tragedy, and private medical treatment. Thus, there is good reason now to go back and possibly TNT the present article, and treat the disparate matters not as a COATRACK (the news treatment of manipulated photos in the age of AI fears, misinformation fears, and social media pressure may be something, but it is not in sum a personal medical or missing person mystery - for example, our own publication likely uses manipulated - perhaps once thought innocuous - images throughout) but instead treat the various matters with the distance, weight, and explanatory power we as an encyclopedia are required to aim for, especially when BLP and RECENTISM is implicated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This whole business smacks of seeking a supervote to undo a consensus. pbp 19:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It smacks of no such thing and how can you possibly say that when yesterday it became known that the underlying reason for the media circus is that she has cancer, which wasn't known at the time of the first AfD. It is this new fact which caused editors on all sides of the AfD to see the article in a new light, and for many of them to want the content about this updated and for our coverage of this topic seriously reworked because they came to think that the article isn't encyclopedically valid anymore in terms of various policies that are being mentioned, including the one about due weight, another one about living persons et cetera. Firstly, the article was out of date the moment the news broke, and even when the second, now-closed AfD, was started, and BLPs must not be out of date when it comes to sensitive items. To read something nefarious into a desire to reach a consensus on what to do with the article under these circumstances makes for an inappropriate comment. —Alalch E. 20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday's announcement changed nothing. It adds to the information and new RS commentary will be added to the article per DUE weight, but just because she announces her cancer that doesn't magically erase the prior RS. Out of date is a reason for incorporating new info, not deleting validly sourced older information. Finally, my essay WP:CRYBLP is proven necessary, unfortunately, once again, as many otherwise reasonable editors seem to have forgotten what BLP actually says and instead invoke "BLP violation" as a cryptoshibboleth for "something that might hurt someone's feelings" when the policy is very much not that at all. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was describing what caused editors to see the article in a new light and to want to keep the discussion going in order to explain how it is inappropriate to read into something nefarious as in "smacks of seeking a supervote to undo a consensus". —Alalch E. 21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AfD or make a new one. Has everyone forgot WP:BLP? Pretty sure you cannot speculate on living people per that. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me quotes from the article which are BLP violations/speculation, and I can get it sorted. From what I see, there’s 1 section that is clearly labelled ‘unsubstantiated conspiracy theories’ and the rest is balanced, neutral commentary. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overall point, I think, is that the article itself, as a standalone article, goes against the spirit of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP. I appreciate now that this why there has been so much handwaving on BLP: no particular part of the policy addresses it, but it should fall foul, and hence the article should be resent to AfD and deleted as quickly as possible, but it does require (in my view) circumventing typical deletion rationales and treating this is an edge case that should later be reflected in clearer policy to prevent similar articles in the future. *whispers* On this, there are lots of relevant comments and !arguments off-wiki which really should have been brought on-wiki so much sooner, and would have averted a lot of this fiasco had they been expressed.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they all need to be deleted as well? Even so, they are not the subject of this AfD. TNstingray (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of those conspiracy theory articles was taken to AfD and closed as no consensus, while the other is relatively new (it didn't even have WikiProjects attached). In my view, the best possible case for Where is Kate's retention is to focus not on Catherine's absence, nor the conspiracy theories, but the online (media) frenzy, which as another editor said, also takes the focus away from the princess. This might come across as an unhelpful content dispute, but yesterday's extensive article reorganisation and trimming you reverted was meant to go some way to help this by trimming many of the excessive details about Catherine, like the fact that the Waleses were planning trips to Latvia or Italy, that Catherine was wearing sunglasses in the paparazzi photograph, or the insignificant sideshow of the Big Brother appearance, and removing contentious commentary statements like Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, support for the monarchy reached a record low (the source of which has no relation to the controversy). These kinds of details and commentary are against the spirit of WP:BLP, and unless the article changes direction, I don't think it should survive a third AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wonder if past articles about living people's conpiracies like Clinton body count conspiracy theory and Birtherism should have received as strict scrutiny as Kate's issue here. (In fact the Clintons' conspiracy page already survived two AfDs yet neither of them culminated in an intense debate; Obama's survived three AfDs, but each ended with an overwhelming majority of Keep/Endorse votes.) If gossips around the Clintons and Obama deserve more toleration simply based on their status as politicians, then I fail to see why Kate, also undertaking public services, may receive much more protection. Moreover it should be determined to what extent the living people's privacy should receive more protection than those deceased, i.e. for what different reasons from BLP should we treat articles like Lady Di or JFK's conspiracies with heightened scrutiny. Jason211pacem (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this, yeah. It's so weird to have an article that doesn't go against the letter of BLP, but definitely goes against its spirit. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 20:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So no actual BLP policy is being broken then? Okay. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was a single purpose account for the purpose of editing Kate Middleton's page, I would probably have a bit more subtle tact in how I post in this discussion. Parabolist (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
●At the time of her operation in January, Kate asked for privacy.
●During her video update yesterday (1m 50s) she repeated her plea for privacy.
●Yesterday the UK prime minister has accused social media of wild speculation and emphasised Kate has a right to privacy during recovery.
●Yesterday, the US President's press secretary at the outset, briefed the press that they would be respecting Kate's privacy.
● Morally, Wikipedia should delete, "Where is Kate" and find a delete editor who is willing to abide by the subjects privacy request. Jaymailsays (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have noticed you are the only one to mark their post "Delete". This is about whether the closing of the AfD conformed with what's expected of an AfD closing, not whether the article should be kept or deleted. Likely, there will be a new AfD on that. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with your sentiment that Catherine has asked for privacy, and we should respect that. However, the mainstream media and social media didn’t comply with her request, and we can’t WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Her own uncle went on one of the most watched television shows in the UK and said “if it’s announced, I’ll tell you my opinion on it” which set the media and social media ablaze with conspiracies of what he was talking about. I said in the 2nd AfD that we should restructure the article to only focus on the media circus that happened, as the back-to-back front page coverage was no-doubt notable. In the currently ongoing move discussion, I’ve suggested we retitle the article to Media circus around the public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales. It is a teachable moment for society on how to not treat public figures when they’re recovering from surgery. However saying “we should find a delete editor” borders on WP:CANVASSING, and to mention “the UK prime minister” and the “US’s press secretary” are a totally irrelevant people to bring up (they have the same impact as saying “the man down the pub has said we should respect her privacy”) why do they have special influence in this? TheSpacebook (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her own uncle went on one of the most watched television shows in the UK and said “if it’s announced, I’ll tell you my opinion on it” which set the media and social media ablaze with conspiracies of what he was talking about. → If you're referring to his comments on 6 March, no it didn't. I struggled to find non-tabloid WP:RS on his comments except the Sky News source currently in the article, which I added. As per my previous comment, the Big Brother appearance is a non-notable sideshow that should be deleted from the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did point out a BLP problem with the article (which you edit warred back in) it begins with a vague mystery of living person being "absent" when it is plain false that she was mysteriously absent; everyone in the world knew from January, she was on planned medical leave through Easter, and it continues. We know where she was and why, we knew where she was and why (although we did not know all the details), yet Wikipedia raises a question about her whereabouts? -- which is indefensible in and of itself, but then, we do not answer it in the very next breath. That's TABLOID, RECENTISM, GOSSIP writing. And worse, the entire structure is a BLP violation and so is its undue emphasis on a fake mystery (Due is a part of BLP policy). To begin to be compliant, the whole thing needs to be TNT'd from the end to the beginning - we know how it shakes out, eg. we know that the BLP subject says and the evidence suggests the edits were innocent, something people often do before posting picture. We begin with what is real, that's the only way speculation can even begin to be be properly written about in an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the edit war was solely regarding whether the title ‘Where is Kate?’ was to be in the lede, and/or if it should be bolded. How is this a BLP violation? The “vague mystery” you mentioned was still there on both sides of the edit war. edit 1, edit 2, edit 3,edit 4, edit 5. After the edit war, I opened up a talk discussion and another editor restored my edits. Without it, the title was left unexplained. But now the consensus in the current move discussion is moving away from that title, so only now it is unnecessary. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New AFD It's not clear why we should continue reviewing the outcome of the first AFD given that it took place before the major developments on this topic and is therefore almost wholly irrelevant. There seems to be plenty of appetite for a fresh AFD knowing what we now know and this DRV is holding it up. Pinguinn🐧 10:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second AfD is extremely fresh. —Alalch E. 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to WP:BLP problems. If it had been known that Catherine had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy, which came out after this AfD closed -- and, if I'm not mistaken, after this Deletion Review began, this article might never have been written in the first place. Several of the "endorse" recommendations above were posted before Catherine revealed that information. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly given the fact that new information has come to light, isn't a fresh AfD preferable to a relist? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my recommendation to new AfD per IgnatiusofLondon. --Metropolitan90(talk) 00:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's per IgnatiusofLondon, I'll ask you too: preferable to a relist of what? In reference to your comment above: It was known that Catherine had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy when the last AfD held for this article was started. That happened on March 22. It's very possible that you are not aware of this. Also see my comment at the same indent level below yours, which is also prior to yours.—Alalch E. 02:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am arguing against a future, third, AfD but in favor of the second AfD being allowed to continue and naturally resolve, and I come from a standpoint that on March 22 the second AfD should not have been closed, but what should have been closed is this Deletion review. I've said more about this further down so I won't repeat that in this reply. —Alalch E. 15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist of what? The second AfD was started on the basis of new information. If you mean a relist of the second AfD, it had already been started on the basis of the new information, and if you say that a new AfD should be started on the basis of that same new information, it is unclear why the aborted AfD that was started on the basis of that same information and had been running for a while can't be relisted. If you mean relisting the first AfD, that is an impossibility. —Alalch E. 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a relisting of the second AfD: as you say, nothing has changed since that AfD. In reply to your question, what makes me prefer a fresh AfD is that, per Liz's comment above, the second AfD was launched within hours of the announcement, and emotion was running high over policy. It's likely a new AfD will benefit from, shall we say, more considered rationales. But a relisting of the first AfD is to be avoided. I can't see this DRV ending any other way than endorsing the first AfD's close or considering it moot, and interpreting consensus for the article to return to AfD, whether by relisting the second AfD or recognising consensus to ignore WP:RENOM and start a third AfD within six months. In that respect, what I don't quite understand is your position that no further AfD is preferable to a third AfD. Isn't the most important result here that the article's BLP concerns, not mentioned in the first AfD, are reviewed by the community at AfD, rather than the procedural question of at which AfD they should be reviewed? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People get emotional over roads, darting topics, and doughnut shops' articles being nominated for deletion. We don't discount comments because they are emotional. Someone can be emotional and have a good argument. Volunteer time and energy was invested into that discussion and this will not just be thrown away because one person thought that participants are being emotional. That would be irresponsible. And highly irritating. The closer of the second AfD will evaluate all of the arguments and make their determination of what the consensus is if any, and several people having been emotional is not a factor in that at all. —Alalch E. 10:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose "3rd AfD" (anyone can start an AfD, a deletion review isn't needed to start an AfD) but support relisting 2nd AfD. I am so strongly against this deletion review ending with a recommendation for or a procedural start of a third AfD that if this ends with something other than a consensus to relist the second AfD, I am against any further AfDs on this topic, and this !vote can be interpreted as a pure endorse of the first AfD's close (a reasonable close that should not be overturned). A third AfD is an absurdity when the second AfD can be relisted. Many participants in this discussion are probably entirely unaware of the second AfD.—Alalch E. 02:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support relisting the second AfD, as suggested byt Alalch E, immediately above. The changed context of this entire story needs re-examining, but this review is not the place to do that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD - it was out of process at the time but it contains plenty of good faith comment. No need to make people copy and paste into a third one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and do not relist. The article is entirely appropriate regarding an event with massive coverage. The Princess of Wales is one of the highest profile people in the UK if not the world. The title may however need changing. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close and while the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are strong on the overturn side the policy basis is weak... It seems to amount to pounding BLP in a vague and non-specific (and at this point rather bludgeony) way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD per new information that has come out, which hopefully puts the whole thing into a bit more perspective. --GnocchiFan (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Truth coming out doesn’t mean the long period of deception never happened. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "long period of deception"? There's a big difference between "vague statements" and "deception". --Metropolitan90(talk) 00:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As if the photo wasn't? Okay then, even without deception, long period of people asking the question. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD or create new AFD. While the initial close was within the guidelines and summed up the consensus of the discussion, the whole article is tabloid crap that should have been in Middleton's article, not a standalone. Given this didn't pass the five-day test, I fail to see how it can pass a five-year test. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or 3rd AfD. The 2nd AfD is now outdated as the dust has settled. The 2nd AfD mainly contains emotional responses immediately after the announcement. Furthermore, the article seems to have been restructured since. The only way forward is a 3rd AfD. It must also be noted that there is an active forum on the Wikipediocracy which targets this article The Wikipedia monster gleefully tears down the future Queen of England. 109.235.247.80 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what the IP (above) said on re-opening the 2nd AfD. Plus there's been a material development since that AfD was closed on Russian state activity in relation to the conspiracy theories.[5][6][7]. That puts the article on a different basis than was considered prior to the 2nd AfD's closure. An entirely new AfD is needed. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for my rudeness but I don't quite understand how this newly emerging Russian involvement accusation necessarily leads to a new AfD. Does it in any aspect diminish or enhance the notability of the past media outcry against the Royal family, or affect how well this article serves the "scope" or "purpose" of Wikipedia? Jason211pacem (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. What is about this being potentially behind a global news story that you don't understand the significance of? DeCausa (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not to judge whether this accusation is based. And I recognize that this may help explain "why this Gate is sufficiently notable as to be made an independent page", just to the same extent as its impact on the monarchy (which I remember Ignatius finds suspicious; that means, only the damage to the royal house's credibility doesn't suffice for notability). But in regard to a new AfD, it sounds a bit weird: like, before the Russian accusation we should delete the article, after the accusation emerges we should endorse it. That's quite strange, unnecessarily politically charged. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I just thought the Russian may not serve as a new cause for a new AfD process. Jason211pacem (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong: by now I'm still on the Keep side, insofar as "wide reports by global media + impacts that worth mentions (mass media conspiracies, medical data breach, monarchy popularity etc.) ＞ tabloid stories + other negative impacts (e.g. Kate's privacy)" still holds. The Russian accusation only adds a little weight to the Keep side and should't itself serve as a new cause for AfD, that's what I mean. Jason211pacem (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD or create new AFD: In light of new information that completely changes the context of the conversation, I think there are grounds to reopen the discussion about whether or not it should be kept or deleted, but that discussion should be held in a more appropriate venue.170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist second AfD or create new AFD as the issue has been overtaken by events and so the viability of the article merits reexamination. (IMHO, at most this should be a sentence or two in the article on Middleton herself rather than a full-fledged article). Wellington Bay (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, but run a New AFD, given that the reason for Kate's absence (if a 6-week absence after fortnight in hospital for major surgery was even notable) is now public, making such speculation look like bullying. Isn't this a speedy candidate as a hoax or harassment? Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This deletion review has now been running for well over seven days:
To my non-impartial eye, there seems fairly clear consensus to endorse the first AfD's closure or consider it moot by returning the article to AfD (the outcome is the same either way).
The dominant question under contention in later !votes seems to be whether to relist the second AfD that Liz procedurally closed in deference to this deletion review, or whether to run a new AfD.
I am quite concerned that we could end up in an unhappy situation whereby this article is held up at this deletion review because of split opinions on the latter question. This would be unfortunate given the eagerness to review the WP:BLP violations editors see in the article, particularly in light of external events since the article's creation. We are also not really talking about the first AfD anymore, and had this DRV not been started, the second AfD would presumably have been allowed to run its course (I can't see WP:RENOM being enforced given external events, the BLP-violation concerns that weren't expressed in the first AfD, and widespread dissatisfaction with the first AfD's outcome), and the article's future would already have been decided: the second AfD would have closed yesterday. In this respect, this DRV and the disagreement about whether to relist the second AfD or run a third AfD is just holding up the discussion on the article we are all expecting. I don't envy the closer having to determine consensus between relisting the second AfD or allowing a third AfD, and so I think the conclusion of this comment is to say:
I think we are stretching the bounds of what can/should be decided at DRV; and
I think closing this DRV and moving to AfD is more important than determining consensus on whether to relist the second AfD or run a fresh third AfD, and while I would prefer a fresh AfD, what matters most is that this article doesn't stay held up at DRV.
The irony of it all is that those editors who have argued most strenuously for deletion have ended up elongating this DRV, which seems to limit the number of experienced admins willing to close it, thus prolonging the article's existence in its current form. Had they simply allowed the DRV to close as endorsed and started a new AfD, the process would be somewhere completely different, rather than languishing waiting for an uninvolved admin with lots of time to close this. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't feel like true and potent irony when something predictable that was predicted and happens simply happens. —Alalch E. 17:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one advantage of running a new AFD rather than relisting one of the old ones, is that there's been a major change in what the public knows between when the article was initially created and now. Thus making many of the comments in the previous AFDs (and even this DRV) moot. This would simplify and focus the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and do not relist. The original closer elaborated his thoughts very well, saying that a merge is going to overwhelm the original article. I don't think any new AFD is going to change the result, considering the massive media event this is. Swordman97talk to me 01:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original closing decision and no new AfD no policy based reasons against this article have been made clear and all those who oppose this article mostly give emotional responses. The article currently rightly opens to talk about the media coverage. 45.91.134.226 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the new AFD goes, there's lots of policy-based reasons. One is that there's no restriction on a second AFD, particularly when the entire nature of the situation has changed; in this case, since the closure, we've found out that the entire basis of the meme was in ignorance of the life-threatening health-emergency (though perhaps that should have been obvious after 2 weeks in hospital for abdominal surgery - that's a very long time even when things have gone badly, for someone of that age). Secondly, the revelation that a fascist tin-pot dictatorship hell-bent on conquering Europe was behind this going main-stream. It's unlikely that this closes as simply Endorse, and that there'd not be a new AFD, redirect, and/or move discussions. Other policies include WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL, Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify if you are for or against deletion? The combination of (a) "the entire basis of the meme was in ignorance of the life-threatening health-emergency" and (b) "a fascist tin-pot dictatorship hell-bent on conquering Europe was behind this going main-stream" appears to be a potent "keep" rationale. DeCausa (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.