Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:35, 1 April 2024

Where is Kate?

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Article history: For editors unfamiliar with this article and its torturous journey, welcome:

On 11 March, I created Where is Kate?, an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and the Mother's Day photograph that followed.
I immediately started the first AfD discussion, motivated by editors at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales who had resisted calls for including the topic on that article. The first AfD discussion closed on 19 March as keep.
From 20 March, editors at the BLP noticeboard raised concerns that the article violated WP:BLP, which was hardly cited in the first AfD.
On 21 March, Simonm223 initiated a deletion review, believing that the closing statement of the first AfD did not sufficiently weigh the BLP concerns. This deletion review closed on 31 March as no consensus.
With the announcement of the princess' cancer diagnosis on 22 March, TheSpacebook and I initiated a second AfD, which Liz procedurally closed in deference to the ongoing deletion review.

In their closing statement of the deletion review, Sandstein recommended discussion on the article talk page before bringing the article back to AfD. Respectfully, I think the BLP concerns presented by a broad range of editors suggest a strong case for deletion that, ultimately, can only be decided at AfD.

Deletion rationale: I agree with the first AfD's closing statement that this isn't a notability dispute, but rather a question of Wikipedia's scope. As the first AfD discussion suggested, neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:NOTGOSSIP necessarily preclude this article's existence, given that the topic, even the speculation, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources – a matter which does not seem, on-the-whole, to be a point of contention. Not even a quotable part of WP:BLP produces any immediately-obvious rationales for deletion. Instead, in my view, the article merely but brazenly violates the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

This article cuts against the spirit of the policy, not any quotable text that is particularly fitting to this article's case. Of course "what is and isn't the scope of the Wikipedia" is an appropriate discussion for an AfD, because we have WP:NOT, and I see no reason why we cannot add nots that we believe should reasonably exist at this AfD, especially given that this article is clearly an edge case that concerns a BLP. AfD isn't a court interpreting law; it's a community review process in which editors can exercise discretion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some editors have remarked off-wiki that the article has the signature of a coatrack article, exemplified by the widespread dissatisfaction of the current article title and the lack of consensus for an alternative name. I think this is a symptom of the underlying problem – that the article is about a media craze. Finally, the speculation can be, and should be, adequately summarised in a few sentences in Catherine, Princess of Wales; I think a Merge is unnecessary as the sources are readily findable. Given the BLP violations, I think an eventual Redirect is fine, so long as the page history of the present article is deleted, which is why I am supporting Delete. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, information related to the Photograph controversy have already been covered under a subsection of "Privacy and Media". Further, there is sufficient information regarding the cancer diagnosis announcement following the abdominal surgery in January this year. At this point, I don't see what more can be actually added to the main article. Do you , @IgnatiusofLondon, suggest that we should mention all those conspiracy theories or all those appearances like at the Windsor Farm Shop or leaving with her mother in a car to be noted? It would obviously not be relevant in the long term once she returns to public duties full-time and that too, stronger than ever before. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest MSincccc: this comment strikes me as more evidence of the WP:OWNership issues at Catherine, Princess of Wales that motivated me to create Where is Kate? in the first place. I have made no comment about whether "there is sufficient information" or not in the article already; I don't see why this needs to cause alarm for you to leave comments in this AfD or at several editors' talkpages (1, 2) protesting that the current coverage is fine. It's not really the place of this AfD to discuss whether the existing summary of the topic at Catherine, Princess of Wales is sufficient; that question can easily be ironed out by local consensus/edits until the article reaches some stability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have always wanted to collaborate with you. The article needs to be fixed including its prose and citation parameters. I left a subtle message on your talk page as well. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would say this topic can no longer be "gossip" or recent as it has sustained enough wide-ranging and neutral coverage.

Slamforeman (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, Photography, Conspiracy theories, Royalty and nobility, Medicine, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to comments made two deletion proposals ago, this article increasingly resembles fancruft and has content that's only tenuously added (the Queen Victoria stuff and media navel gazing). Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was debating whether to even get involved in this latest round of AfD but here we are. I think this is the sort of article Wikipedia should have from a reader's point of view - the reason I've known about the several different discussions around it is because I came to Wikipedia to try and find a well-written non-conspiratorial summary of this all. I think that's important to have, and I think (by and large) this article does that. For me, as long as it complies with policy, that's enough for a clear keep vote. I may be missing something obvious, but I don't see that the article violates the policies in question here; while this article could have been a pile of gossip (and I must commend the editors who have kept it from being so), I'm tending to think the different facets of the issue mean that it goes beyond that. In its current state, I personally don't see that it even violates the spirit of BLP or NOTNEWS. Having said all that, this is definitely a borderline case and I expect many editors will have different opinions to me. I do hope that this is the last time we have to have this discussion though! Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. Certainly an interesting case of mainstream gossip. At its core, it's gossip. But, in my opinion, this gossip has recieved a sufficient amount of coverage from non-gossip sources about where she was that it should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say. Whether or not we like the coverage reliable sources gave this gossip, they gave it coverage and Wikipedia should reflect that. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm reminded of the Nicola Bulley article, where a very British attitude to an event might not translate to other countries. This is a well maintained, well researched article about a very particular moment in culture, a slice of internet culture we could do well to retain. Notable in its peculiarity, and backed up by enough secondary sources. doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this page violates the spirit of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Next thing you know we'll be creating a 100K page every time a world leader causes the chief accountant to resign by having the country pay for repairs to his pool when the country is at war. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic but that sort of thing would definitely warrant an article. Slamforeman (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated entry? Erm... no. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see why not. This Netanyahu scandal might not have enough reliable sources or sustained coverage, but if it did, as is the case with Where is Kate?, an article on the topic would be very helpful (and would probably pass WP:GNG).

As for WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, they could most likely be solved by a light rewrite. Honestly though, I’ve yet to see a specific example of content in the article that violates those guidelines. Slamforeman (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slamforeman Just in case you have forgotten that this is an AfD and not a discussion page for what you are presently discussing. Please take Netanyahu related discussions to the appropriate talk page to not diverge from the main topic here,i.e., whether the article Where is Kate? should be retained or not. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, @MSincccc. I was just using an example to illustrate why this article should remain. Apologies for any confusion. Slamforeman (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and boil down this tabloid trash to a one-line entry in the Middleton article with a redirect. It's WP:BLPGOSSIP and won't stand a ten week test, let alone a ten year test. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Daily Mail online. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure so but we have sufficient coverage on Catherine's recent health issues as well as the Photograph Controversy that gave a new momentum to all the needless speculation. At this point, there is not a need to add anything to the main article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also consider the edited photograph that made the Kensington Palace "No Longer A 'Trusted Source'" ([1]) something that won't stand a ten year test? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of "where is Kate", the photograph and related subjects still received significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The notability, or suitability, of the topic is not suddenly lost because of the diagnosis. I do support a rename to a more appropriate title. Skyshiftertalk 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SchroCat. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and utter tabloid drivel. Polyamorph (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in complete agreement with User:SchroCat above. The article is against the spirit of WP and should never have been created in the first place. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under both NOTNEWS and BLPGOSSIP, sadly given excessive weight by media fascinated by the Royal Family. As soon as she announced her diagnosis, coverage of the absence vanished from the media, indicating this entire period was overblown by the media. A few lines in the bio page should be sufficient to include the main points of this period, which is the appropriate summary of the news. --Masem (t) 11:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few lines in the bio page should be sufficient

Would you include everything related to the edited photograph in the bio page as well? For example, the rare kill notices or that the Kensington Palace is "No Longer A 'Trusted Source'" ([2])? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the suggestion from SchroCat (talk). Headhitter (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, I have left talk-page notifications of this AfD to editors who contributed to the first AfD, BLPN discussion, deletion review, and second AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject gained significant and WP:LASTING coverage in global media. Any WP:BLPGOSSIP concerns can be addressed via minor rewriting and therefore are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Frank Anchor 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I consider a redirect and selective merge to Catherine, Princess of Wales as a viable option as well, though my first preference is keep. Frank Anchor 12:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP apply. There is no WP:LASTING effect here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverae across two months (and counting) is a strong indication of a lasting effect. Frank Anchor 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We do not need an article for tabloid gossip. DrowssapSMM 12:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I expressed on the talk page, this article is fundamentally unencyclopedic. It's a longstanding principle that while everything we cover should have been covered by reliable sources, conversely, we are not required to cover everything which is covered by reliable sources. Exercising editorial judgment is our role as Wikipedians. This article fails the WP:10YEARTEST and does not add any value to Wikipedia. A social media feeding frenzy spilling into reliable sources =/= a notable event. One or two sentences on Catherine, Princess of Wales would be more than adequate to cover this non-event. In 10 years, the fact that "there were conspiracy theories and media speculation about Catherine's health and whereabouts before she announced she had cancer" will be enough to tell the reader everything they need to know at an appropriate level of detail and summarization. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of a short section in the main article. An article stuffed with WP:RECENTISM on a WP:BLP, purely driven by tabloid journalism and conspiracy theories should never have existed in the first place. It is noticeable that the coverage actually hasn't been WP:LASTING, disappearing to a trickle as soon as the diagnosis was announced, quite apart from the BLPGOSSIP issues with it. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with MASEM and others. This is a perfect example of why an encyclopaedia should wait for the dust to settle before creating articles like this. We are not a news or gossip site. Mentioning briefly in her bio that there was intense media interest in her whereabouts and that she was the subject of conspiracy theories is fine, but this is more than excessive. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep eventually though the article should be redirected to prevent BLP violations. It is best to draftify it for now until a point in which the gossip has died down a bit. An article about her cancer diagnosis might be too short right now and suffer many issues in the current article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 12:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and condense any actually relevant information into Catherine, Princess of Wales. My stance is the same if not stronger than it was during the first AfD. The article is an absolute mess behaving in the exact same way as the royal-obsessed media. Wikipedia should be better than that. The cancer diagnosis proves the ridiculous nature of this article; as the speculation reports have subsequently vanished, this article should join them, because that is all it is: a sloppy, rehashed, gossip-riddled BLP violation of an individual's medical privacy that will not be notable a year from now, let alone ten years from now. "Catherine was diagnosed with cancer and the media (including Wikipedia) went crazy until forcing this announcement." That's the only detail that is notable. TNstingray (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of a short section in the main article, per Black Kite's reasoning. The media frenzy was certainly significant enough to justify a mention in the main article, but it is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. — The Anome (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, NOTNEWS and GOSSIP are negated by the reporting in reliable sources. Personally, I’m not overly worried about BLP violations from keeping this separate, so long as the focus is on the speculation and media frenzy and not on Catherine herself. IMO, there’s enough WP:SIGCOV to establish separate notability here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily selectively merge per NOTNEWS. This is classic tabloid fodder making "news" out of an absence of news. We don't have an article on the March 2024 M25 closure and that will arguably have a greater long-term effect; instead, it gets two sentences in M25 motorway which place it in the context of the 50-year history of the road. You could justify more but not an entire article. Consider the 20-year test—all that will be remembered in 20 years is that she was out of the limelight while undergoing cancer treatment and that's all that any serious biography will say. Not everything that makes the front page of the newspaper needs a Wikipedia article, especially during silly season or slow news days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison would perhaps be the late Queen's disappearances in the 1960s when she was pregnant. I'm not sure it's even mentioned anywhere - it's certainly not got it's own articles. Nfitz (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, just gossip and news, can be a single paragraph in the main article about her. Artem.G (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! I think my views on this are already quite well known; I've even been reported for expressing them too vehemently. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". The article is pure gossip and facile conspiracy-theory-mongering regurgitated. That sections of the mass media find such regurgitation thinly disguised as 'reporting that people are gossiping' profitable is no reason for Wikipedia to engage in the same: they have to make a profit, we don't. WP:NOTGOSSIP clearly and unambiguously applies too, though frankly I'd have to suggest that the very fact that this 'article' has been permitted to exist as long as it has makes me wonder whether Wikipedia should consider dropping the pretence, along with any claims to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a mere collection of 'whatever lurid speculation we can find on the internet, cobbled together under convenient titles'. If the aim of this project is to do that, it should try to be honest with its readers. We owe them that much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear violation of so many policies - with both the title and the contect. In addition to BLP that includes [WP:BLPGOSSIP]], WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I'm not sure why this wasn't Speedied. Nfitz (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per many of the comments above. Two or three sentences in the article about her would suffice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nfitz, IgnatiusofLondon and many others. The article was made pre-maturely, and while it "may" have eventually become notable enough to meet NOTRECENT, it definitely won't be. Completely disagree with Estar8806's NOTNEWS and GOSSIP are negated by the reporting in reliable sources, that's the exact opposite of why both those exist. We need NOTNEWS and GOSSIP as pages "because" there is plenty of Reliably sourced info we do not want to include, otherwise we could just point to RS. Soni (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, NOTNEWS and NOTGOSSIP were addressed in the first AfD, which closed as Keep. Although not everything reliably reported needs to have an encyclopaedic article, this is really a question of what should, and the general view in that first AfD was "yes, this should". Annoyingly, other than BLP-handwaving, there isn't really much policy-wise we can point to to say "no, this shouldn't". And so, in my view, something needs to be added to WP:BLP expressly about media crazes on living persons. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was orthogonal to the "Is this article passing NOTNEWS" (which we're currently saying "No" to, per WP:CCC). I was saying "RS cannot be enough to just overcome NOTNEWS by existing" (because otherwise NOTNEWS would be a redundant policy).

WP:NOTGOSSIP is a policy already. I do agree though, we probably should have the policy amended to adjust for media fads. Soni (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of a short section in the main article. This whole affair won't be important in six weeks let alone six years - it is tedious gossip. firefly ( t · c ) 12:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An absolutely ghastly embarrassment for Wikipedia, tabloid nonsense WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:TABLOID apply. Two sentences in her own article would suffice Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is WP:bludgeoning and WP:forumshopping to the extreme. All the rational for the keep hasn't changed in the last however long but this has stemmed from a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all the BLP issues people claim to identify above don't actually identify and BLP issues. Actual issues on the page should be challenged and remedied on the page, not here. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recentism and tabloid gossip as per per Nfitz, IgnatiusofLondon et al. A few lines in List of conspiracy theories and Middleton's biographical article are all that's needed. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this third AfD is WP:bludgeoning and WP:forumshopping and wasting editors' time. And at least the digital manipulation of the Mother's Day photograph and its impact on fake news discussions is not WP:GOSSIP at all. Rwendland (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into a section on her main article focusing on the photo manipulation "scandal" and the media fallout, rather than the gossip. I still think this deserves coverage as an interesting PR blunder but at this point I don't think the article is worth keeping. Estreyeria (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the photoshopping incident, its reaction, and the cancer diagnosis are not gossip. The rest is unsalvagable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales. This article is a WP:COATRACK for gossip and speculation regarding a celebrity. The person is evidently notable but what little notable information that exists in this fork can easily fit into a paragraph on the parent article. I also have no opposition to a straightforward deletion on the same rationale. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nope, just nope. This can easily be covered at Catherine, Princess of Wales.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ganesha811 and HJ Mitchell. This is a 1E with likely zero enduring noteworthiness, worth about two sentences in the Princess' article. JFHJr (㊟) 14:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IanMacM. St Anselm (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP and many other comments above. One or two lines covering her cancer diagnosis in her main bio are all that's relevant to Wikipedia; the fever-pitch gossip and breaking-news reporting of mad conspiracy theories have no place in an encyclopedia. If royal historians pick up on this incident and publish proper fact-checked accounts of it then we might have the basis for an article, but we absolutely should not be basing content on living persons off of celebrity news reporting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ivanvector and various others above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPGOSSIP and many comments above. Reliable sources have tabloid and social-media-copying departments these days as well, so the existence of coverage in reliable sources should not preclude deletion under WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTNEWS. Kwpolska ^{(spam me/contributions)} 14:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's not appropriate for us to host an article with this title, there's no content that it would be appropriate to merge, and it's not a useful redirect.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Catherine, Princess of Wales public absence controversy, Kategate, Public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales — The issue is that this topic has a breadth of scope that must encompass unfounded conspiracy theories. It is that breadth of scope, however, that warrants a separate article. If editors are cognizant of falsehoods, this could persist as an article. The alleged health intrusion and an article I recently read in The New York Times associating Kate Middleton conspiracy theories with Russia solidified my stance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, it's a terrible, uninformative title. Which could raise the possibility of simply renaming it. Most of the article consists of material that should be in Wikipedia somewhere. But with the long term view in mind, there is no reason for this particular way of bundling the material. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the article is a mashup of "everything Kate related for a 9 week period" including things that are otherwise unrelated, under a very bad useless title that doesn't describe the content. History will show that what's here is the first two months of her cancer story plus an unrelated "doctored photo" story. These two topics need to be covered in two places under under intelligent titles. 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the litany of reasons in the Delete votes above mine. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete—I'm inclined to doubt that this "controversy" passes the WP:10 year test. (t · c) buidhe 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: the core of [WP:10 year test]] is to wait instead of rushing to deletion "Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball... Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." It can't be used to justify a rush to deletion, it literally says above all else avoid rushing to deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content and title can be addressed by editing and renaming. The deletion advocates have advanced no coherent, policy-based argument why deletion is necessary and other editorial measures will not suffice. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, no less than a dozen editors who opined an unqualified bolded delete opinion have mentioned merging part of the content, including multiple administrators who should know better: Per WP:CWW that would violate our license. The admin closing this discussion will undoubtedly soldier through and notice this, but those !voters doing this deserve the courtesy of being informed that they didn't vote for what they believe they did. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Are you seriously claiming that no merge or copying within Wikipedia is legal? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving the article history for any merged text is necessary so that the original content creators can have any kind of attribution. However, I think the delete !voters are arguing something else—not reusing any content from this article, but writing a brief summary on the other article. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article history contains any particularly libelous or privacy-violating to necessitate a deletion of the history if we merge part of it. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it did, there are specific history deletion tools to that deleting the entire history would be unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BS. All that is needed in a mere is to include references to atribution like a {{merge from}} or similar template on the talk page to uphold the contribution part of the license. — Masem (t) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... which in turn requires that that history remain extant somewhere to document the contributions, such as in a redirect (that is, not deletion), hence my original point stands. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we may not have to use the exact text here, instead writing a wholly new summary using exist references. Or if needed, a redirect is created and protected from recreation. I don't think there is an argument that material here violates BLP in such a way to require revdel, so the redirect option is appropriate. But it is implied by the votes here editors don't want this recreated. — Masem (t) 20:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: editing, redirection, merging, and renaming are all valid ways to re-shape the article to better reflect the new information. WP:MAD has been in plain sight explaining how to do this for 16+ years now. Key point: it's still not actually deletion even if it all goes away and/or is transmogrified beyond recognition. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leaning Draftify but keep name Notability of this went down like a lead balloon, probably because all those who reported on it would be hypocrites to talk about the coverage they took part in, and not many sources have been covering the coverage (what I think the article should be about). TheSpacebook (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable once its always notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean specifically is that the topic has not sustained its notability, as per WP:SUSTAINED. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The topic continues to receive coverage, articles from the last 24 hours have even been linked to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this isn't a particularly good article but it does appear to more than satisfy out criteria for a topic worthy of a stand-alone article. Content issues and not liking the name are not reason to delete. The Delete votes appear to be largely based on IDONTLIKEIT and blatant snobbery despite the rather lukewarm attempts to point to NOTNEWS (which actually seems to support keeping it) and NOTGOSSIP (which doesn't seem to support the argument for deleting it as strongly as some think)... "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable;" Yes it is "whether the material is being presented as true;" Yes it is "and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Yes it is. For those making the 10 year argument... Do you honestly think that a biography of Middleton or the Royal Family published in ten years is going to not include this topic? Because I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not News applies as this was a burst of coverage that immediately died down as soon as she revealed why she had been absent from the public presence. With 20/20 hindsight, it should be clear that what was covered under that burst had no lasting significance and had several BLP violating issues. Remember that the GNG also warns if bursts of coverage, and even this did pass the GNG, that's not a guarantee of having a standalone article when other policies state otherwise. — Masem (t) 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're multiple months in now, there have been multiple bursts of coverage. Lasting significance has been established. Can you elaborate on the Not News argument? This doesn't meet the original reporting criteria, this doesn't meet the News reports criteria, this doesn't meet The Who's who criteria, and it doesn't meet the gossip and diary criteria... So if it doesn't fall under any of the four categories which make up not news what is the not news based argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - The celebrity gossip aspect of NOTNEWS applies, no questions asked. Every detail of a celebrity's life (of which Middleton is) should not be documented, even if that is something done by reliable sources. — Masem (t) 16:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - But we aren't documenting every detail, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest. This would seem to clearly fall under the latter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Only the photo scandal and cancer announcement seem to have notability. The rest can just be summarized as "After rumors surrounding her lack of public appearances,". Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Earlier you said merge, now you are saying that there are not only one but two notable topics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The article is excessively detailed for what amounts to being one large piece of gossip (why was Middleton absent for several months). We have a definitive answer to that question with her announcement, so any media article that is talking to speculation prior to that is no longer a valid source to consider for sourcing (the idea that that speculation is moot). — Masem (t) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a unique take on what constitutes a valid source, thats is also not a piece of gossip... Many of the explanations were gossip but the question itself wasn't gossip, it was a valid question which turned out to have a valid answer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Fairly I think trying to frame it around the media circus related to her absence may be a topic, as there seems to be a number of sources taking the media to task over how it handled this situation, but that would require rewriting this to remove a lot of the gossip facts that do not need the depth of coverage currently given. Mostly this would require more secondary sources speaking to the media circus factors. And that might require a TNT approach to write. But to add, it probably is easy to sum that up to Middleton's article for the time being. Do we have an article that details that media's fascination with the Royals and and their adjunct? Might be time to think about that... — Masem (t) 20:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Middleton's article is already lengthy, it seems like doing it there just to break it out again in a week or two isn't what TNT is for... TNT isn't for the "might" its for when you're certain that it can't be done otherwise. Most of the academic coverage is of the Royal family's cultivation and use of the media, people seem to understand why they're fascinating. The royals get wall to wall coverage because the royals have manipulated the media and social ecosystem for decades to justify their aristocratic privileges and make sure that they are never outside the media's attention. If this does get merged perhaps some belongs at Never complain, never explain, there is coverage along those lines [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason I call for TNT if this was to be refocused on the media spectacle is that the overall approach to the article would need to be to literally turn the topic inside out as it's written now to frame the media first and foremost and bury the nitpick details of speculation. And it does sound like a topic on the Royals and the media is ripe to be created. — Masem (t) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems we have a lot of people who oppose coverage on any page at all beyond a single sentence or two... That is my main worry, that even if we decide to merge the content elsewhere people will continue to try and censor it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note the assertion that anything died down is mistaken, its easy to find very recent coverage [4][5], so as you can see the impact is ongoing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think much of the conspiracy theory nonsense and tabloid gossip would be included, because most of it was complete bollocks. And I say that as someone who is no fan whatsoever of the royals, despite being a Brit. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the argument has to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:CRYBLP, but rather that this type of article, which is clearly an edge case, should be precluded by the policies cited (what I call their "spirit" in my nomination statement) by virtue of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and if this type of article isn't obviously precluded, the policies should be clarified accordingly. At AfD, we have some discretion for policy interpretation, which is consistent with many of the Delete !votes. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what type of article is this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed expansion of WP:BLPGOSSIP, this is a media craze about an event in a living person's life, which can be adequately summarised for an encyclopedia reader's interests in the living person's article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic here includes the "media craze," (not sure I've seen any RS describe it exactly that way though, they seem to be less aggressive and hyperbolic about it) that is currently the primary notable element. But more importantly not a single person other here other than you has said that media crazes are categorically not notable, nobody else is discussing whether articles about media crazes should be precluded by the spirit of the citied policies... Unless they're doing it in some sort of code. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having invested so much emotional energy ovrr this fiasco, I am concerned that many of the Delete !votes here seem to circle back to arguments made and addressed at the first AfD, with simple nods to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT, which I argued against. But yes, this is my argument: media crazes about an event in a living person's life, which can be adequately summarised for an encyclopedia reader's interests in the living person's article, violate the spirit of WP:NOT/WP:BLP. This wasn't a rationale explicitly expressed at the first AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename -- the name of the article is ridiculous and unprofessional, but the content is well sourced coverage of an extremely widely-covered controversy across international news (and particularly in the U.S. media by mainstream, reliable sources). This isn't a short term, one-off event; this story dominated U.S. media coverage for weeks. "I don't like it." isn't a good enough reason to delete; nor is "The international media was mean to my favorite princess." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOTGOSSIP, SUSTAINED, BLPVICTIM, NOPAGE. If it's possible to cover this topic on existing pages, we should do that (and we can and do). We definitely do not need the tabloidy minutiae currently in the article anywhere else on this site. I would say many aspects of high-profile celebrities have enough IRS significant coverage, including lasting coverage, to meet GNG amply, yet we recognize these things don't need their own pages. What makes this any different? JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah look! Something new in the letter jumble. What is "BLPVICTIM" it clearly can't be WP:AVOIDVICTIM because that doesn't apply here so what is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Sounds like it applies to me... this is after all fundamentally about the media frenzy over the lack of an event. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would writing an article about a media frenzy that is no longer happening prolong or participate in that media frenzy? -- Jfhutson (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It literally is participating in a "dead trend"? Just that the frenzy's gone doesn't mean making an article about the topic doesn't count as giving unwanted attention to an LP. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AVOIDVICTIM is for "a person noteworthy only for one or two events" because it's inconceivable that this article could bring "unwanted attention" to the Princess. She is a public figure; that doesn't mean there are no rules but it does mean we don't have to worry about our article bringing her to the attention to someone who's never heard of her. -- Jfhutson (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not appear to be the victim of a crime or of any relevant actions by another person. Let alone being primarily notable for such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, it is unclear to me what a valid reason for deletion might be. The article subject is notable (there is no shortage of RS coverage); the article content itself is related to a valid, particularized subject--the disappearance from public view of one of the most public royals is certainly something which is identifiable as a subject; and the "BLP" claims seem hoary and ill-founded. Second, we have had two nominations and a deletion review in short order. We should respect the time and effort which went into those discussions by not continually holding the article in abeyance. Third, it's worth noting that this is an active subject! All we know for certain of her whereabouts is that Kate went into the hospital after Christmas and a video was released of her at the end of March. In the intervening time, the Royal family, one of the most powerful and well-connected institutions in the world, released misleading information to the press (in the form of a public statement which lied about when she went into the hospital and why), released a faked photo purportedly taken by the prince of wales and when the forgery was discovered blamed Kate for the "editing" mishaps (to be clear, this was a composite image likely from photos taken in 2023 doctored to alter the appearance of her children so the actual date would be difficult to discern), and countenanced to be released a telephoto image of "Kate" in a car with William. The Sun and TMZ (both owned by one individual now) released a video purporting to be her walking in late March which attributed to a photographer who disowned the material. Something is afoot. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 16:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half of what you said is your personal opinion, basically advocating for keeping the article since the monarchy is dodgy in your opinion. First of all, what did they lie about in their initial announcement? And what's your proof that they "blamed Kate" for the photoshop fail? Can't a woman take responsibility for her mistakes or are we supposed to all rally around the damsel in distress? Keivan.f^Talk 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where I said the monarchy is "dodgy". I'm also not sure what you're talking about vis a vis damsels in distress. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a WP:COATRACK which will invite only more gossip and nonsense to be added to a page concerning a living person. WP:BLPGOSSIP clearly applies and so does WP:NOTNEWS as the coverage concerning the so-called conspiracies ceased once she made the announcement. 10 years from now no one would care about details concerning her medical leave. It will be reduced to a footnote in the overall scheme of her life. And we cannot keep the article in the expectation that something is going to happen. We don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Keivan.f^Talk 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:10YT literally says don't rush to delete it because you don't have a crystal ball: "Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball... Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:10YT states: "Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" The answer to all of that is pretty clear. This article is not even relevant at the moment. The woman has cancer and is undergoing chemo. There's nothing here to report upon, at least not in detail. Keivan.f^Talk 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want to re-write the article or do you want to delete it? Because that part of 10YT is about balancing what is in an article, that is not the part about deleting articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Augmentation/retitling are reasonable suggestions, but deletion seems too far. The reaction to Kate's temporarily-unclear whereabouts was a notable, prominent, and somewhat unique phenomenon. Whether it was tacky or not, it occurred. SecretName101 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; feeling too lazy to type a full rationale, but my reasoning is similar to HJ Mitchell. Celebrity gossip doesn't deserve an article. For some reason, I'm quite sure this vote would be more unanimous if this were any other celebrity, say, Rihanna or Swift; the Royal family should be treated no different. DFlhb (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is a clear violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. The photoshopping incident can be moved into the main article but the rest clearly should be deleted. Loki (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many editors above. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. If you want policy then WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP will do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many rationales expressed above, specifically those that cite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Little reason to think WP:LASTING applies.--Trystan (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While news media covered speculation about Kate Middleton's whereabouts, there wasn't sufficient analysis to create a good article. Even if there was, the manner in which the article was created would justify WP:TNT: blow it up and start again. TFD (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly highly notable meme. Russians boosted it? Then talk about this within. That's part of the notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For what it's worth, I came into this thinking I would support delete, but after reading the article and this page I am now pretty convinced there is no reason to delete, and that the article is an interesting and informative piece that could be read 10 years from now by one interested in the monarchy and public affairs in this decade. The nominator points to the spirit of WP:BLPGOSSIP as the primary rationale for deletion. So I thought, regardless of that policy's text, what is the spirit of WP:BLPGOSSIP, or what is the reason I believe people should avoid repeating gossip? Google says gossip is "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." The harm of repeating gossip (even if you do not believe it to be true) is that it spreads potentially untrue speech which reflects poorly on people. But in this case, there is no speculation in the article about details of the princess's life that might reflect poorly on her that anyone could think is true. Everything that was mysterious has been made public by the person in question, the truth is not scandalous, and surely she would have eventually made it public even if she had not been forced. There is description of gossip (that she got plastic surgery or there was marital trouble) that happened during her absence, but as of today no one is continuing to gossip about that because the true reason for the absence came to light. It would be a reason for precluding those details while they were being gossiped about, but not once they were disproven (and we could even just delete the details of the gossip and simply say that there was speculation if there is still a WP:BLPGOSSIP concern). The only people that the facts in the article reflect poorly on are the paparazzi, the gossip magazine writers who harassed her during her absence, and the overly curious public. As for WP:NOTNEWS, I really don't think it's accurate that this is not an event of enduring notability. Surely this will be in the minds of many people the next time there is some kind of royal flare up, or someone of note gets cancer, or someone public disappears. The article's "Impact" section does a good job of using reliable sources to demonstrate that it has WP:LASTING impact and is a "catalyst" for several things (there are people under official investigation, there is an increase in cancer awareness, there are conspiracy theories and official reactions to conspiracy theories, there were changes in views on the monarchy, and many notable people apologized for their commentary). --Jfhutson (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that part of the concern for WP:BLPGOSSIP, including my own, is that it is both unnecessary to produce a content fork about tabloid speculation and beneath the dignity of the project. I have no great love for the subject and no particular interest in protecting her any more than any other BLP but I would not want such tawdry minutia about anyone on an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:CONTENTFORK, if there is a fork you would need to point to the other page with the same scope (right now Catherine, Princess of Wales has an appropriate summary style pointer to the page under "Health." I don't think the overall subject, of the Princess of Wales disappearing for several months and then announcing to the world that she has cancer, is tawdry minutia. The announcement was covered on the front page of the New York Times as "putting a grim coda on months of rumors about her condition..." -- Jfhutson (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Kite, AndyTheGrump, ianmacm and quite a lot of others. This clearly fails on multiple WP:NOT grounds which are clearly expresed above. Some good faith keep votes argue that the subject is notable. No secondary sourcing is brought to bear, but supposing we accept some such exists, should the article be kept? The answer is no. This, in fact, falls foul of WP:N, which states:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
Both arms of WP:N must be met to be notable per Wikipedia policy. Thus it is irrelevant whether the article might meet GNG or not. As long as it is excluded by WP:NOT, it is not notable for an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying that you have evaluated exactly none of the sources but that you don't need to because no matter how good they are and how many there are it doesn't matter? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said you weren't even aware of the existence of secondary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said none had been brought to bear. The two you posted above, [6] and [7] are primary sources. No one else has posted any in this discussion. I also did not say "no matter how good they are". If a source were to be good enough that it refuted the WP:NOT arguments, then notability would no longer be excluded under WP:NOT. But that is the bar: you have to show that the NOT arguments do not hold, or else this subject is not, in fact, notable for an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally what people do before commenting in a deletion discussion is review the article and its sources, you shouldn't expect them to spoon fed to you. Coverage of coverage is secondary, articles can contain both primary and secondary coverage. Its already been demonstrated that none of the NOT arguments hold. If you would like to try and make an argument which can hold please do so now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally one also should not assume this has not been done. But if you are determined to continue to misread what I have written and to put words in my mouth, I suppose I shall leave it there with you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I assume it has been done, that is why I was shocked to see you apparently declaring that you had not done so. Which of the NOT arguments do you think has held up under scrutiny? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we delete this article, will there be a case for Where is Where is Kate? Edwardx (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel (and fear) infinity raising its ugly head here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With 71 participants in the first AfD, 45 in the second, and 75 and counting in this third AfD, this is not a bad question to ask... IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We know where she is & why the previous secrecy. The rumors are irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it gossip, but the article wasn't even reporting about the gossip phenomenon but just perpetuating the gossip itself. While it technically meets WP:GNG, it is clearly excluded by WP:NOT, and (as per Sirfurboy above) is thus not suitable for an article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "meme", if such it can be called, was astroturfing, with most of the traditional news media publishing opinion-tinged analyses of how foolish it was, and using the photo as a teachable moment on the high standards for authenticity that they have instituted because of the rise of first promotional photoshopping and subsequently AI-generated images. Since the public statement by this BLP subject that she has cancer, this emphasis in reliable sources on the social media phenomenon as having been baseless and ill-advised has been even more marked, with several articles suggesting misinformation by state-sponsored bad actors. And the basis of the "story" has collapsed, replaced by the context of her illness. It's not an independent encyclopaedic topic discussed in reliable sources, but rather an episode in the "health" part of her private life, and per BLP and UNDUE we must follow the best sources and therefore not elevate it in importance. IMO it shouldn't even be a subheading, much less an independent article, and the current title should either be deleted or redirect to an article on photo and news agency rules against manipulated photos and the history behind those rules, or some other broad topic related to press and/or social media coverage of people in the public eye. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For heavens sake: Delete, Delete, Delete Huldra (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health where the appropriate level of coverage already is. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the first AdD closed as keep less than two weeks ago and was upheld in deletion review. WP:SKCRIT 2c: making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion. The information that has been reported since the first AfD, such as speculators being correct and the issue of her health being worse than what was being reported by the palace, or if the affair was boosted as some kind of Russian disinformation campaign, only adds to the notability of the event.

Failing speedy, Keep. The first AfD already established the massive amount of significant coverage this affair received on the front pages of worldwide top-tier reliable sources.

This affair and article is not notable as a detailed accounting of the various surgeries and illnesses of the woman that crosses BLP lines. Rather, it's first a very prominent example of (some subset of, pro or con, true or false, good or bad) a conspiracy, conspiracy theory, media circus, missing white woman syndrome, Category:Royal scandals in the United Kingdom, etc. The coverage and internal handling of the event is itself notable, not each doctor's visit taken by the princess.

The second important facet of the article is the historic secrecy and "Never complain, never explain" public relations strategy of the British royal family crashing up against the modern information economy and strongly or lightly held criticism of the monarchy. This is clearly a trend and current historic moment/decade for the Monarchy of the United Kingdom, what with Brexit, Scottish independence referendums, Megxit, Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal, death of the Queen, coronation of the first new monarch in nearly 70 years, subsequent cancer diagnosis of Charles III, etc. This lens of the event is covered prominently by reliable sources and explicitly lists the veil of secrecy and failed PR around her health as one of the top crises currently enveloping the post-Elizabeth British monarchy as a whole. This view of the topic easily meets the WP:10YEARTEST and is sure to feature prominently in any history of this period of the monarchy.

If the votes go towards deletion, my preferred WP:ATD is to rename/merge the article to Mother's Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales. The photograph is itself plainly notable, similar to Mug shot of Donald Trump or any of the Category:2020s photographs. That article could explain the photo's issuance and "kill notice" retraction plus some of the "Where is Kate?" background.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is someone famous releasing an edited photo even a thing worth more than a sentence? Some phones are doing that automatically now. It's not like they painted out Prince Trotsky or something - which surely is more noteworthy, and seems to get a single sentence; that's an example of something having longevity! There has to be some factor other than nutters nutting. Nfitz (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Thats why we generally defer to WP:RS when it comes to determining what proportional coverage is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of images in the Soviet Union already exists; let's hope we don't need to create Censorship of images by the British monarchy. The Mother's Day photograph is worth more than a sentence due to its sustained coverage by reliable sources and their coverage of news agencies issuing an unprecedented "kill notice" for the royal photograph. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ultimately, this entire artificial palaver is a footnote to the Princess's health, which is properly discussed in her main article. We are not Paris Match, we don't need this level of breaking-news minutiae, especially when the truth is now known and understood. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:GOSSIP, WP:NOTTHENEWS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete without prejudice to a limited amount of the material being merged. This is overcoverage of a tabloid invention. Having an article makes us complicit in the British tabloids' efforts to reify it into a thing. It is not a thing. There is no subject called "Where is Kate?" and there won't be unless, say, somebody were to write a book and give it that title. The frenzied speculation can be mentioned in the article about her. The way the British tabloid press completely shat the bed and had to rapidly reverse ferret, while blaming everybody other than themselves, can be metioned in appropriate articles about the very dignified history of the British press. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 *'''Delete''' - ultimately, this entire artificial palaver is a footnote to the Princess's health, which is properly discussed in her main article. We are not ''Paris Match'', we don't need this level of breaking-news minutiae, especially when the truth is now known and understood. [[User:GenevieveDEon|GenevieveDEon]] ([[User talk:GenevieveDEon|talk]]) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:GOSSIP]], [[WP:NOTTHENEWS]]. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC).
+*'''Delete''' without prejudice to a limited amount of the material being merged. This is overcoverage of a tabloid invention. Having an article makes us complicit in the British tabloids' efforts to reify it into a thing. It is not a thing. There is no subject called "Where is Kate?" and there won't be unless, say, somebody were to write a book and give it that title. The frenzied speculation can be mentioned in the article about her. The way the British tabloid press completely shat the bed and had to rapidly reverse ferret, while blaming everybody other than themselves, can be metioned in appropriate articles about the very dignified history of the British press. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)