The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎.

The main arguments from delete !voters were WP:BLP (and specifically WP:BLPGOSSIP), WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. They felt that, instead of focusing on the effects of the coverage itself, the article was excessively detailed on the subject's own actions. Some stated that the article is unencyclopedic, as it covered a number of only somewhat related events (a coatrack article). Some cited the ten-year test, which asks if the article's content will still be relevant in ten years.

Keep !voters felt that since the subject of the article has a significant amount of coverage, including in reliable sources, it is a notable topic and warrants a separate article. Some keep !voters felt that delete !voters' arguments were based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I do not think these keep !votes presented a strong argument.

I felt that the arguments based on WP:NOTNEWS, which is part of one of our core policies, were stronger than those based on the amount of coverage the topic has received. The consensus here is that there should not be a standalone article on this topic. Most people felt that, although there is significant coverage, the article contained more detail than was necessary, and a section in Catherine, Princess of Wales would be more appropriate.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(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. ✶Quxyz✶ 12:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I was too tentative with my keep. I do still think caution should be exercised and that there are problematic areas of the article. However, throughout all of these discussions, I felt like all of the claims of BLP issues are tangential or blown out of proportion. Deletion arguments at the Horrifying Embarassment and this deletion seem to want to keep Wikipedia classy and sanitized and focus on the 'spirit of the . That is not its goal, it aims to collect all encyclopedic information in a free, neutral, and civil manner. I also doubt that the spirit of policies were so badly violated that the only option is deletion. Having an article about a significant phase of a political figure seems to fit most of those. Also, while I was skimming through the article I only found one key area I would question. It was a sentence describing the agencies as killing the image without elaboration with what the article meant by it specifically. The article does need to be trimmed, though. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:37, 2 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]

  Because of what happened in the first AfD, it could not be Speedied. The creator of the article went to AfD themselves to see what the consensus of the community was ten minutes after the article was created. In both of the discussions that matter, someone voted keep early on, also preventing a speedy close. So WP:SPEEDY could not apply either after 10 minutes from the article's creation or after four hours had passed from when both of the main nominations occurred. (The second AfD and nomination doesn't matter due to procedural reasons.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:03, 3 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]

  (Including @IgnatiusofLondon) I don't really see a need to try to amend NOTGOSSIP again. NOTGOSSIP is basically an anti-trivia policy on celebs and athletes to keep biography articles from getting cluttered with pointless facts about the person. "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." (Emphasis mine) Even if we ignore that restriction, it would need to be argued that this was not notable or that there would be no reasonable reader interest, which isn't the case either as has passed notability and there are currently 1k daily readers with things on the quieter side. But, if you do feel like policy needs to be modified, I would suggest trying to have NOTGOSSIP modified so it applies to articles that cover events solely/primarily about the person.

  For BLP, I don't see where it can be modified to prohibit an article like this. (The reason? Because any such policy would nearly be guaranteed to be better off as part of NOT instead of BLP and it would be better off to modify NOTGOSSIP than to develop a standalone NOT policy.) Though, BLP could have a section that points to a specific NOT policy. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I agree with most of what you've said. My proposed modification is to WP:BLPGOSSIP, not WP:NOTGOSSIP. I've made some relevant comments about reasonable reader interest etc. at 16:48, 2 April 2024 (reply beginning Per previous commments, in my reading). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:13, 4 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]

  I will agree. IDONTLIKEIT either, and I think the tone of the article should shift and also include all the controversy and backlash as a result of the subject of the article. But we must remember that we are at Articles for Deletion and there is not a valid deletion rationale for the deletion of the article. Anyone who identifies an actual issue regarding the content of the article with regard to our WP:BLP policy should be encouraged to challenge the content and discuss it on the talk page, as was recommended by the closure of the DRV. Everyone arguing that there is a policy based rationale here is not actually backing up their arguments with policy and examples to the text of the article. I must commend IgnatiusofLondon, the nominator, for their deletion rational which says violates the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP (emphasis in original) that everyone citing policy seems to overlook. Lets have an actual discussion about that if we must. But the arguments saying it does violate those policies are disingenuous. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:02, 2 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. StAnselm (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]

  Well, a lot of Diana-related stuff apparently passes the 20-year test…who’s to say this is different? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:18, 3 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]

  NOATT seems to make it clear that attribution is needed if material by other contributors is duplicated. So I agree with Jclemens in that I don't see how we can delete the content and attribution, but then merge some of it to a separate article. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, the same section): Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia) requires attribution. As pointed out by replies in this sub-thread (1, 2, 3, 4), rewriting from sources is a more accurate interpretation of those delete recommendations than copying from Where is Kate?. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So:

  • Most Delete-supporting editors mentioning a merge* to Catherine, Princess of Wales seem to have in mind at most a paragraph. (*that is, saying that the topic should be summarised and treated at that article)
  • The current coverage of the topic at Catherine, Princess of Wales includes a paragraph on the Mother's Day photograph (under the subheading Photograph controversy) and this sentence (under the subheading Health): The subsequent speculation about Catherine's absence and health prompted various conspiracy theories and attracted extensive media attention.
  • I suspect this coverage is sufficient to satisfy most Delete-supporting editors who mention a merge.
  • Should anything else need to be added to Catherine, Princess of Wales, it will take two minutes to locate and add any of the multitude of reliable secondary sources covering this topic, without having to recycle any sentences from Where is Kate?.

  These facts considered, I don't think there is a sufficient amount to salvage from Where is Kate? for inclusion at Catherine, Princess of Wales that precludes deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I don't think it is correct that a dozen editors who bolded delete mentioned merging the article. For instance, Black Kite says Delete in favour of a short section in the main article. That is not suggesting anything here be merged to the main article, it is suggesting that a new short section be written. If you want to get there, you wouldn't start from here. No text need be copied from here. This text can be wholly ignored to do that. Note that it is very much not against the license to write new text, in your own words, in an article even if it collates information, and summarises text, from elsewhere. That is what most of Wikipedia is! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Jclemens's count is off. Using Ctrl-F, I found few delete supporters recommending "copy"/"copied" (0) or "merge"/"merging" (1 before his count; 2, 3 after). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was also a lot of this before the photograph, so maybe also prepend After rumors surrounding her lack of public appearances in some form before that paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:59, 2 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]

          What? Non-sequitur. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          How is pointing out that you've gone from arguing that there is no notable topic here to arguing that there are two notable topics here a non-sequitur? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          Okay, I meant noteworthy. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:00, 2 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]

          Masem I think that there could possibly be an encyclopedic article about media coverage of the royal family. But do the serious, preferably peer-reviewed sources exist yet? And would this incident if given proper due weight even form a significant past of such an article? A woman took some time off, was seen at a store and in a car, and turns out to be ill. Compare to Megan Markle or Princess Diana or even Prince Andrew. The doctored photo might possibly be a sign of hubris or desperation or vanity or ignorance, with a very slight chance it could be worked into a discussion of the mutually beneficial arrangement the palace has with Fleet Street maybe. Again though -- Harry felt he had to chose between his mother and his wife, Diana *died* and Prince Andrew was thoroughly disgraced with extreme prejudice. These events are notable. Thinking you know more about Photoshop than you do? Hmm. At most it could be one of several examples in a list of examples of astonishingly mindless coverage. Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 7 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]

┌──────────────────────────────┘
Now that I have time to look, there's a section British royal family#Media and criticism that along with the two articles given as seealso, could be the founding of a good article about "Media coverage of the British royal family". I am sure that aspects of the media's coverage related to Princess Diana's death could have significant expansion.
what is key is that an article that focuses on the media aspects would not go into as many details into the personal facets of the royal family outside of key important points (here: Middleton had disappeared from public view for several months, at one point having the doctored Mother's day photo that led to more concerns, but all ending with her announcing her diagonsis, maybe 2-3 sentences *max* on those personal details), and instead the focus should be on the criticism of the media's over-reaction to her absence. What we don't need, for example, is the massive amount of speculation told from a primary source perspective (like the current Speculation section) or red herrings like the Windsor Farm shop video section; that's regardless of whether this is kept or if content is merged to a separate article. — Masem (t) 00:18, 2 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]
      • That coverage seems like ongoing gossip-type coverage of the Royal family rather than actual coverage of the absence. No one is talking about the absence anymore because there's an honest and rational reason for it, and the media had overreacted with massive speculation. — Masem (t) 03:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that it talks about the legacy/impact of the absence. You can't separate the absence from the cancer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 2 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]

You implied that the palace has thrown her under the bus by blaming her for the photoshop fail, which (again) is your opinion. We don't need to have an article dedicated to a person's whereabouts since some people might be having concerns about her wellbeing that are not necessarily rooted in reality. Keivan.f^Talk 04:57, 3 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]

The foundation of this article, which raises questions about the whereabouts of a living (and not missing) person, is wrong and even with WP:TNT you would not be able to get much out of it. Keivan.f^Talk 04:57, 3 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]

  I agree,it's a massive exaggeration to say that a photoshopped image( which has been done since Queen Victoria's reign) raised questions on relevance, integrity and consistency of the monarchy. The issue here is people demanded to know her private medical details hence the media frenzy, hsyteria and people have varying views on its impact ( see rolling stone contributer assertion that they ought to disclose more due to extensive international coverage), but i would suggest using reliable sources that actually have dealt with the monarchy as an institution over the years, all other reliable sources simply have opinions but if you would listen to, read from royal biographers or journalist who work with them closely you would realise this is a non-issue within the broader aspect of the monarchy which operates within the confines of its creation. I've just joined the wikipedia editors community but i would like to point out that the articles makes no reference to the fact that William missed his Godfather's memorial due to being informed on Catherine's cancer diagnosis. Further it makes light of the commentators who were not conspiratorial by referring to them as Kate's supporters. Ella Nya (talk) 13:26, 2 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]

There are multiple deletion rationales that have been advanced at this AfD which were not or were hardly advanced at the first AfD, including WP:BLP and WP:BLPGOSSIP. We are therefore not dealing with the same arguments, and of course the other major event since the first AfD is the announcement of the princess' cancer diagnosis, which especially prompted a strong reaction and recontextualisation of the article at the second AfD. Coupled with the appetite for a fresh AfD expressed at the deletion review, I don't think speedy keep criteria apply, and the community seems happy to ignore WP:RENOM.

I'm not convinced that this will be remembered as a historic moment in the history of the monarchy akin to the other events and news stories you mention. Nonetheless, there is obviously relevance for conspiracy, conspiracy theory, media circus, missing white woman syndrome, never complain, never explain, and republicanism in the United Kingdom. But what about the topic, as a case study, merits a standalone article, rather than any brief mention/treatment in these separate articles, with a longer section at Catherine, Princess of Wales? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:24, 2 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 mentioned in appropriate articles about the (very dignified) history of the British press. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little worried that my !vote might be misunderstood as suggesting that a rename could solve this, so I'd like to clarify that I don't believe that. There is no change of title that could address the fundamental problem here. Not only is there no subject called "Where is Kate?", I don't believe that there is a discrete, stand-alone topic here at all. What we have here are aspects of other topics that need to be covered, in a proportionate way, as parts of those other topics' articles. We are already doing that, so this article largely redundant. As I said before, anything that is worth merging can be. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - the more that this goes on, the more that my position on the matter is settled. Many of the !votes on this article are close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT because of the subject of this article - WP:NOTGOSSIP only pertains to insignificant matter, which this is not. This will also likely be useful to future readers as a key example of how social media caused a conspiracy theory to go out of control so WP:CRYSTALBALL shouldn't apply here. WP should only make decisions on articles based on the Three Pillars. It's not original research, it's clearly verifiable, that just means that it comes down to NPOV, which is what most oppose !votes are about. One look at the article and it's clearly neutral, so it should stay. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To reiterate what I said in the previous AfD, the article is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:GOSSIP. Even if it is top level news sources doing the celebrity gossip, it is still celebrity gossip nonetheless. And gossip based on pure speculation and not evidence, the worst kind of gossip WP:NOT policy violation. The article should never have been allowed in the first place as a split from the primary biographical subject. Silverseren^C 22:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We just had this discussion. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but merge some information into the main article. The fact that there was much speculation is notable, and can be mentioned in the main article. What is not notable, however, is each of the particular theories and gossip; listing them fails WP:DUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Much of the Initial speculation and Reaction and increased coverage sections, and a good amount of the Windsor Farm Shop video and Reaction to propagation of conspiracy theories sections, contain such theories. Essentially, this article is just a big article of reactions, mixed together with a few good sections (the ones actually describing the situation). We should mention what is notable enough (that is, information about what actually happened, and not the speculation) in the main article, but that doesn't need its own article. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear keep: Her inadequately explained period of absence from public appearances, and the way it was handled by her and her spokespeople, and the interest in the subject from the press and the general public, were the focus of a very large amount of coverage in independent reliable sources worldwide. Indeed, practically all broad-readership independent reliable sources covered it in substantial depth, and it would have been a disservice to readers if they had not. This is an obviously notable subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As per the first AfD closure, my nomination statement, and Sirfurboy above, the notability of the topic isn't really under dispute: across the discussions, only a minority of editors have argued that this article isn't reliably sourced using secondary sources. Rather, the question is whether this topic falls into Wikipedia's scope. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In this AfD the word notability currently appears 25 times and notable 34 times outside of this chain of comments. It seems like that makes discussing the notability or not understandable, despite the first AfD deemed notability not a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On Notability:

  As I am mentioned here, I'll clarify. There is often confusion between the General Notability Guidelines and the concept of Notability. GNG is where we get the requirement for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. However, notability is not established by meeting GNG alone. Notability for an encyclopaedic article relies upon meeting GNG and not having the article excluded under WP:NOT. Thus what I said is that even if GNG is met then this article is still not notable for an encyclopaedic article, because it is excluded under WP:NOT. That is the policy. So it is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On Secondary Sourcing:

  I also did not say this article is reliably sourced using secondary sources. I cautioned that secondary sourcing had not been discussed in this AfD, and merely hypothesised that sufficient secondary sourcing may exist. On the matter of sources, I note that the question of primary and secondary sourcing is not nearly as cut and dried as most seem to think. Newspaper reports are generally primary sources. See, for instance WP:PRIMARYNEWS. But that is not always the case either. Whether a source is primary or secondary often relies upon the question being asked. Where the article tells us, for instance, that Catherine was seen in public, and relies on a newspaper article that says she was seen in public, that is clearly a primary source. This piece [8], however, takes a step back, contains opinion, and discusses the media furore. That is, on the face of it, a secondary source. But then, when we look what it verifies in the article, we see it being used to verify certain specific details (e.g. staying in hospital for 2 weeks) for which it is, in fact, a primary source. If we summarise the source we are using a secondary source, but we are not doing that.

  Newspaper reports (and this is almost all newspaper reports) are largely primary though. It is too soon for the kind of reliable secondary sourcing from which one might write a tertiary encyclopaedic article. This happens a lot on Wikipedia, and the community appears relaxed about this where we can, at least, suppose that proper histories will be written one day. But that cuts to the problem with this article, and why it fails on WP:NOT: any historical treatment of this matter will be all about Catherine's cancer diagnosis, treatment, and legacy. This media furore and rumour mill will be mentioned, but it won't be the focus of coverage, and this blow by blow newspaper style reporting will not appear in such sources. What we are trying to do, by relying on newspaper sources, is to be historians. We are using primary sources here to write a history of the event. Historians prefer the primary sources, because they are writing the secondary sources. But we are not doing history here. We are doing an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. There is a reason for that, and this article demonstrates that reason. We are not doing the history very well (partly because we are actually in it, so can't see the wood for the trees, and partly because we are simply following the news reports without applying the critical and necessary original research demanded of the historian.) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Within scope: If it is clearly acknowledged that the topic is notable, then I also argue it is within scope. While some would dismiss the subject as celebrity gossip, the events of the last three months have not been just gossip and speculation, and some amount of gossip and speculation were arguably natural responses to what was happening. The three-month phenomenon of her inadequately explained absence from public appearances is more than just gossip. Let's recount some of what happened here: 1) there was no clear explanation of what sort of surgery she underwent; 2) assurances were given that it was not cancer-related, which ultimately turned out to be false and was not corrected until long after some insiders knew it was false; 3) abdominal surgery generally does not require this long a period of recovery before an otherwise healthy person of her age can basically function at a normal level; 4) during this unusual period of being completely withdrawn from the public, there is a cheery photograph released, seemingly to try to keep a lid on the situation; 5) the "photograph" rapidly turns out to be some edited collage of different photographs pasted together; 6) she's noticeably not wearing a wedding ring in the picture; 7) a statement is released (again without appearing in public herself) saying she edited the photo herself; 8) she is suddenly sighted from afar at a market and captured in some choppy bystander video. This all happens in the setting of health issues for King Charles. These are all real events in the life of one of the most notable public figures in the world. Removing this sequence of events from Wikipedia or scattering it into snippets and summaries in other articles would not be appropriate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the most notable public figures in the world. Poppycock. She wields no political power whatsoever. She is only this in the minds of celebrity gossip-mongers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree with this if you remove the irrelevant "political power" part. I as a Chinese-American did not know anything about her until the photoshop stuff went out. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NOPAGE this topic (such as it is) would be better covered – briefly – in the main article. Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the froth of speculation has receded, all the mystery has been cleared up, and there is nothing to say.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm thinking back to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the similar amount of comment, conspiracy theories, trolling, speculation etc. that occurred. The potential policy violations (WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:GOSSIP etc. etc.) that have also been raised here were quickly identified, and after a month of heated discussion on the main article, a separate article, Reactions to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann emerged. I think that article could be a pattern for something like Reactions to Kate Middleton's 2024 illness. Again, things would need to be put into context and WP:BLP, WP:GOSSIP and WP:UNDUE would need to be considered. For example, the whole photo manupulation thing that is being used as a justification for keeping this article would need to be put into context. (Who hasn't enhanced a photo they've taken? This was clearly not done to deceive. It's not like Kate's head from another photo was photoshopped in to make her look more healthy than she was; the photo accurately depicts what it was purporting to depict.) That could be an article that would serve the purpose of having a record of what happened with due respect for our policies and the individuals invloved. But I still believe that this article as it stands should be deleted. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I really just wanted to walk away from this explosion, but I can only shield my nose from the smoke's toxic fumes so much until I need to breathe. As someone who generally cares little about the Royal Family, I honestly think that most of the people here arguing that this reads like a rejected Daily Mail thinkpiece have missed the point of this article in the first place. Where exactly are the disparaging comments made about her character? If there were any of those in the article, they were either deleted on sight or mere neutral reflections on what the media believed. This isn't an article explicitly asserting that she hid from the public eye due to some tinfoil-wrapped conspiracy. Rather, it's about how her seclusion led to speculation built from spread out straws, which she immediately blew away through her diagnosis, and the resulting fallout from the debris. I see NOTNEWS invoked as a point against this page, but the coverage that goes beyond routine announcements and speculation are more than enough to justify its encyclopedic value. The three lessons I take away from reading the page, along with the multiple secondary and reliable analysis pieces on this topic, are these:

1: Conspiracy - The general dangers of conspiracy theories in warping humanity's perceptions of reality, especially when intertwined with celebrity culture.

2: Celebrity Worship - Society's obsessive deification of public figures leading to our minds capturing these rare moments of vulnerability as if cracks suddenly appear in the statues we encased them in.

3: Social Media - The ease of social media perpetuating unfounded narratives with little regard for privacy or respect.

These three lessons prove that this incident means so much more than some "Metal Kate Solid" publicity stunt. It's an article that invites thought on various societal implications the same way a true encyclopedic article should. The only people this article insults are those who purported these awful takes in the first place - including both the mainstream press and the public at large. If Wikipedia wants to take itself seriously, it would keep this article as a mirror to reflect society's behavior in moments like this, because it's a reflection future generations deserve to see. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is definitely excessively detailed on the princess rather than the speculation: we don't need to know that her father-in-law visited her in hospital, that she had been planning a trip to Latvia in the spring, or that she was wearing sunglasses in the TMZ paparazzi photograph. But this is content that can be removed (though when I did, the edits were reverted).

I appreciate the importance of the news story on the (effect of social media on) conspiracy theories/celebrity worship. But what requires this "case study" to have a standalone article, rather than simply being mentioned on the relevant pages? For example, the kill notices issued on the Mother's Day photograph were significant; they receive a mention at kill notice. Can't the same be done at celebrity worship, conspiracy theories, and social media? What requires a standalone article? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question you're asking is covered at WP:PAGEDECIDE. I don't think anything requires that this have its own page, but if we concede it is a notable event, we should be asking which way makes it easiest to understand. There hasn't been a lot of discussion about that on this page that I have seen. "The decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes." To me, in understanding this event, it is more understandable to have this article than a few sentences in another article. -- Jfhutson (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, per the example at kill notice, the significance of this event on all the various topics raised by PK-WIKI and PantheonRadiance can be adequately treated on pages for which the event has some resonance, without requiring a standalone article. For example, Where is Kate? currently reads:

Before the cancer announcement, commentators remarked on the royal family's adherence to their 'never complain, never explain' minimal disclosure strategy.

Never complain, never explain could be updated to include a paragraph (with better sourcing) along the lines of:

Following a planned abdominal surgical operation in January 2024, speculation on the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales grew on social media and was widely reported by the international press.^{[a 1]} Some commentators remarked on the royal family's adherence to the never complain, never explain strategy,^{[a 2]} arguing that it only exacerbated speculation,^{[a 3]} and was inadequate given the controversy's extensive coverage.^{[a 4]}

An additional sentence or two could then be expended on the cancer diagnosis announcement and any subsequent commentary relevant to never complain, never explain. In my view, this is sufficient to understand the event's relevance to the strategy, and other aspects about the event (the nature of the speculation, the events that increased speculation, the sightings, the Mother's Day photograph) do not need to be explained to understand the event's relevance in this context, a hallmark of a WP:COATRACK. What information exists at Catherine, Princess of Wales will suffice – because this is, after all, not about the princess, but about the media craze.

For sure, understanding this event will always be easier in a standalone article than it would at Catherine, Princess of Wales. That doesn't get around the question of whether an article on this event (particularly given its BLP nature) and its minutiae is a suitable entry for an encyclopaedia – that is, whether Wikipedia should provide coverage for readers wanting to understand this event – which brings us to WP:NOT. Wikipedia can mention and analyse the speculation/controversy on all the articles for which it is relevant, but that does not mean it requires a standalone article amalgamating all that information. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you say to those who point out that Catherine, Princess of Wales is already a large article and that in order to cover this topic to NPOV standards would exceed the standard size of a good article and we would have to break out this or other topics anyway... NPOV doesn't let us write just a few sentences and NPOV is not negotiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at 10:55 UTC 2 April 2024 (Most Delete-supporting editors mentioning a merge*...). My reply would be: what else needs to be added to Catherine, Princess of Wales? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see somewhere between 40k and 60k bytes which would have to be merged there. Given the scope and volume of coverage we don't have an option here other than to cover it that extensively, even if we wanted to cover it less than the sources do we are bound by NPOV. No matter how much people want "at most a paragraph" isn't an option unless we go and rewrite NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those 40k to 60k bytes coming from? What sections need to be merged? What makes the current coverage at Catherine, Princess of Wales insufficient for encyclopedic coverage? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this event is presumed to merit an article if it passes notability and NOT, then we would need to do our best to explain this event, and as you said that is better done in a standalone article than merging. So we are back to NOT. The text of NOTNEWS has to do with enduring notability. I think the "lessons" above contribute to the idea that this will likely have enduring notability. I think the Impact section of the article also contributes. -- Jfhutson (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we are back to the spirit of policy, not its letter. Only criterion 2 of 4 of WP:NOTNEWS concerns enduring notability, and seems to have in mind events like 2023 Milan nursing home fire; this criterion isn't directly applicable in Where is Kate?'s case, though criterion 2 might have something to say about how the article discusses some individual events (e.g. William missing the memorial service, the Windsor Farm Shop video). Some editorial revisions can help. Criterion 4 of NOTNEWS is more promising – it's not about enduring notability, but celebrity gossip. Still, as I said in my nomination statement, I think WP:BLPGOSSIP is more applicable than WP:NOTGOSSIP. Finally, per my previous comments, I agree that there is discussion in the impact section, usually relating to specific events or themes discussed in Where is Kate?, that is relevant for articles like Republicanism in the United Kingdom; it still doesn't justify a standalone article on the set of events and themes from the speculation/controversy. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to lay out what you think the spirit of the policy is, otherwise it's IDONTLIKEIT. To me, the spirit of anti-gossip policy is to avoid spreading speculation and conspiracy theories that could harm people. But right now we don't have speculation that's in danger of being spread, all the rumors have been disproven (except actual crazy conspiracy that even after the announcement she is missing, which isn't in the article at all), and the badness of the speculation and conspiracy theories is part of the story in the article. The spirit of anti-news policy is to avoid trivial stuff, reporting on every event that gets in the news, without anything to say except what was reported in the news. But this was a truly extraordinary and drawn-out event, and commentary from a variety of sources, news and commentary, can be summarized. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous comments, in my reading, 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, are precluded by the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP. Focusing only on WP:NOTGOSSIP:

news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest

Here, the policy has in mind providing goal-by-goal summaries of a footballer's career included in their biography, let alone, say, Lionel Messi at the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Analogously, Where is Kate? effectively provides a media-mention-by-media-mention summary of her early 2024 and the associated commentary, separate from the princess' biography. What I haven't worked out is how Squidgygate might fit into this. Then we have 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.

I appreciate that we don't have speculation that's in danger of being spread. The question here, for me, is not that there is gossip: as I said also in the first AfD, the coverage of the gossip is extensive and non-tabloid. Rather, the question is what is the subject. For a BLP policy page, it seems reasonable to interpret the subject as Catherine, Princess of Wales, not early 2024 speculation about the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales. That is to say, although readers are reasonably likely to have an interest in the media craze, any such article is not disinterested, and if it can be adequately summarised (avoiding goal-by-goal summaries) in the main biography, it should be. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair that this is "media mention by media mention." The article has a narrative, and the events from various news articles are linked in a cohesive way. On GOSSIP, I think the subject is an episode including the unexplained disappearance, surgery, media frenzy, photo, and the announcement, and those are linked in a cohesive way. I think that subject has enduring notability as explained above. The fact that a media frenzy is involved (see this list of such things) doesn't take that notability away. -- Jfhutson (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would also be prudent to edit out what some of the conspiracy theories were and also impact on the Monarchy as an institution considering this not a scandal as compared to the tribulations of individual members over the years and if the public response to her cancer diagnosis is anything to go by the assertion that it somehow damaged the monarchy as brand is void. Ella Nya (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments (generally Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT) (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 14:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Firefly and Bon courage. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Addendum: as several users have correctly pointed out, the topic of this article would, when written in actual summary style, total at most a few sentences. There is more than enough room for it in Kate's BLP, where it belongs.[reply]
• Strong keep. A major news event about one of the most notable people in the UK which generated extensive, sustained, national and international media coverage. It doesn't get any more notable. Though the title is suboptimal. Stifle (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My initial reaction was to delete based largely on WP:NOTNEWS and BLP concerns. But there's a strong meta-story about the way the tabloid press, compounded by social media, can and do blow things out of all proportion. "Where is Kate?" isn't the right title for this, but there's a move discussion in progress where we can discuss that aspect. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Like Brexit, Han shot first and The Day the Music Died. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF? And not comparable in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Where is Kate?" wasn't the biggest postwar challenge for any British government didn't paralyse the politics of a country for 3⁠1/2⁠ years. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no idea what the relevance of those are, but none are WP:BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Its gossip and meme. Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the high participation in this AfD, on Liz's suggestion, I have requested at WP:AN for three uninvolved administrators to form a panel to close this AfD once its seven days are expired. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete Just because something 'passes' GNG doesn't mean it must have an article, Wikipedia isn't a gossip magazine. If this isn't covered by the exact wording of current policy this discussion should be used as a basis for rewording policy so it does. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. And it is covered by policy, per WP:N. See my comment above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. What makes me change my stance from weak keep to strong keep is the egregious misconception of many delete votes about this article’s nature, much of which PK-WIKI and PantheonRadiance have put very clear. Also shout out to IgnatiusofLondon for his core role in this precious public debate. Still I regretfully have to begin my own analysis with some ambivalences in his past statements:

First, BLP and especially NOTGOSSIP concerns. As provided in the deletion rationale, Ignatius finds it a great fault to violate the “spirit” of NOTGOSSIP and BLPGOSSIP, while acknowledging the outcome of the first AfD. Yet, it seems no one ever cares about what that “spirit” means. Then, to avoid a repetition of the first AfD, we must give it an explanation: either we follow the original wording of the cited BLPGOSSIP guidance and establish from now on a bright-line rule against any gossip (which I will address in the last paragraph), or we break the “spirit” down into exact interests in hope of finding something not discussed before.

As much work has been provided by PK and Pantheon, I'll just make some supplements. Referring to precedents may offer some help here. In the last DRV I’ve raised examples of Birtherism and Clinton body count conspiracy theory, and I regretfully find no reply: why the conspiracies around the Clintons and Obama, also potentially violating BLP, survived AfDs? Is it because these figures are “more political” and thus should tolerate more criticism? Is it because this article is around Kate’s health, which bears more importance than birthplace or criminal records? I fail to see huge differences here. Even though Kate's interest is a bit greater than Obama's, the global reaction to this story persuasively overweigh it: the opportunistic MP Galloway grasped on it, and even accusations against Russian spies emerge (per DeCausa in the last DRV).We don’t need a critical theory professor to deliver a tedious essay on body and politics; evidence is obvious. Also, while there is indeed concern about Kate’s privacy or the Monarchy’s renown, it should be noted that here, even the most controversial title "Where is Kate" shows no malice against the public figures; the most materials in the article, if drafted decently, shows only concerns about the masses’ active engagement in a royal scandal (though in a wrong way).

Second, Proportionality. Per WP:ATD we should first check whether we can save the article by editing. For example, many find the title “Where is Kate” obnoxious, yet that doesn’t constitute a reason for the whole article’s deletion. Some may suggest merge, i.e. a few sentences in Catherine’s article, or in the list of conspiracy theories are enough. But that seems to me still a second-best choice, because above we have found many points of interest that may be ignored when merging. How can we address the mass media or monarchy mishandling issues in an article that focus on Kate’s own biography? Even we manage it, who can guarantee that it may survive a possible future response to WP:TOOLONG? Not tolerating any remediable problem is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Third, WP:COATRACK concern. Many COATRACK advocates seem to ignore that it is to date only an essay, not a policy. Why so? I believe it is because of risks of its misuse in an edit war. From my perspective, many Delete voters simply presuppose that this article should be a superfluous collection of unsubstantiated news about Kate’s health, and refuse to believe that it may ever become a genuine article about a mass media movement. I admit that there may be disagreements on the exact purpose of an article; contradictory ideas may even be observed on one single editor. Ignatius as example here: when he recognize the focus is the “media frenzy” but not only Kate herself, in a March 23 response to TheSpacebook he finds it good to remove the notion that “since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, support for the monarchy reached a record low” for not relevant, while this, from my perspective, has nothing to do with BLP and exactly explains why some were so furious during the frenzy. Still, if one doubts that an article has developed in the wrong way, what they should first do is TRY TO EDIT IT, per proportionality stated above.

Finally, I have to utter some of my original research here. Some may still question about my stringent adherence above to freedom-of-speech rationale. Can’t the WP just choose a bright-line rule to be more accurate, reliable, official, while inevitably missing some valuable grassroot gossips? My answer is No. We live in an era of falsity: speech freedom and credibility encroach on each other, authorities and celebrities still pretend omniscience by cracking down on ever increasing dissents. In the “Orient” the GFW (I sincerely hope everyone may read the Chinese version of this, during which many dissents came from nowhere and were easily dismissed by the authorities as conspiracies), in the “West” maybe a DMCA takedown notice or a defamation suit. In history, Wikipedia has been the ally of Lawrence Lessig whose utopic fantasy about Internet still impresses us today. I’m not refuting policies like WP:DATABASE, but by de facto collaboration with the Internet Archive (which is now also in jeopardy following the suit by Penguin) WP is indeed a quasi-pirate that helps to find sources which, even if accessible in a legal sense, may be hard to locate under the search engine-designed hierarchy, and the donation from the mass guarantees that WP still ranks top on the google page. That means, WP is a unique exception that may exercise its potential to RECORD memories for the mass, that, even though not deleted, can easily be flooded over. With a bright-line rule that potential is denied. We have had a long history behind us against the tragedy of “wish[ing] to obtain from electronic databases material that is not there” (Breyer J., dissenting, Eldred v. Ashcroft). In such a time of falsity we have to rely on our own trust in a real “marketplace of ideas”(Holmes, J.) and never be complicit: not only are we waiting for a Robert Darnton to tell our offspring how a transformation starts with an unnoticed cat massacre, but also we do this for our own sake. Jason211pacem (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jason211pacem, for your kind words. Just a few comments:

• no one ever cares about what that "spirit" means → Yes, it seems like the spirit argument hasn't had much uptake in the rest of the AfD, at least not explicitly. I appreciate it is handwaving, much like I find the WP:BLP arguments handwaving, but that is because the letter of the policies doesn't, in my view, preclude the article, and so this is a question of editorial judgment about Wikipedia's scope that isn't well-encapsulated by existing policies and guidelines. We are dealing with an edge case, and in ActivelyDisinterested's words: If this isn't covered by the exact wording of current policy this discussion should be used as a basis for rewording policy so it does. So the fiasco has prompted me to propose an expansion to BLPGOSSIP, with no expectation or intent that BLPGOSSIP be modified to affect the outcome of this AfD while it is still running.
• why the conspiracies around the Clintons and Obama, also potentially violating BLP, survived AfDs? → I don't have a clear-cut answer to this, but these articles discuss longstanding conspiracy theories, rather than media crazes. The actual conspiracy theories (e.g. that Catherine had a bad hair do) were a comparatively small part of this news story, which really resembles more of an event and speculation than conspiracy theories.
• How can we address the mass media or monarchy mishandling issues in an article that focus on Kate’s own biography? → We don't, because this has nothing to do with the princess, which is one of the recurring comments about Where is Kate?. We address these issues on their respective topic pages, e.g. Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Per my previous comments, which I don't want to repeat at risk of bludgeoning, I think this can be done without requiring a standalone article like Where is Kate?, and the relevance of the speculation/controversy/photograph/whatever can be afforded different treatment on different topic pages, without requiring readers to understand all the coatrack to understand its significance to a particular topic.
• in a March 23 response to TheSpacebook [Ignatius] finds it good to remove the notion that “since the death of Queen Elizabeth II → The source used to justify this statement preceded Catherine's hospitalisation, and was being used to contextualise commentary on the speculation/support for the monarchy. It might have been helpful context, but I thought this use of a source was poor editorialisation: the article required a better source to sustain the statement, clearly linking (low) support for the monarchy to the speculation/controversy. Until such source was presented, I removed the sentence.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same idea with ActivelyDisinterested that the policy needs amendment. But I cannot agree with such a possible interpretation of their statement that "gossip", a hollow pejorative adjective, adequately serves as a proxy for deletion. That's what I called a dangerous bright-line rule.

In terms of your suggestion of "different topic pages" treatment, I think it correctly distinguishes two kinds of value at issue when deleting an article that contains more than one single event (needless to say most articles fall into this category): the value of each event that may inevitably be lost during the deletion, and the "compilation value", which I think should have been better addressed by WP:PAGEDECIDE.

Admittedly the lifespan of a conspiracy theory is an important factor, but a story may still gain independent value for a standalone page when other factors are taken into account; then breaking it down into pieces of info in different pages may substantially burden the reader who needs a holistic knowledge of the whole event. I've been reminded of a case of reference value on the Chinese WP which I'll later sort out and (if you don't mind) put on your talk page (to prevent this AfD page from being too verbose). Jason211pacem (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the keep arguments are particularly poor. Under Wikipedia policy just because something is in newspapers or on the news does not mean we have to have an article. The keep arguments also seem to plead ignorance of, or not care, that "Kate" is a living person. (BLP) The entire premise of this article is a crime (missing person), or conspiracy theory, or gossip about a living person, with the real undercurrent that the living person is either a poor liar (of omission and/or commission) or a fool of others. But no, the keep then tries to claim it's not about Kate, what the keep actually means it wants to do is put Kate in the corner and turn her into a COATRACK for other things. No, Kate's not your coatrack either, she is still a living person, and to the extent it is about other things, the only responsible way to discuss is in the context of other subjects, not this article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing person is not a crime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your quibble? How unserious, missing person is regularly the start and implication of criminal mystery. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same people who think Paul McCartney died decades ago and was replaced. That's what this article is, right up there with Balloon boy. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think almost everything you wrote is wrong, but I decided to ignore the incivility/hyperbole and address the first concrete point you raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was never a ''missing'' person. Killuminator (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is also true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is no decent point in having this 'where' article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion copy and paste article into draft space and strip all mention of Catherine, and we title it something like 'Where is Olivia?'; and have it as an example essay of what not to do when something bursts in coverage for 1 week and then drops in notability like a lead balloon after. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except there has been sustained coverage of various elements of this story for over two months already (the surgery in mid-January, the Mothers Day picture in early March, her announcement of cancer in late March), so clearly not a "burst" as you suggest. Frank Anchor 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article exists because a bunch of bored online people selected her to be meme of the month in March. All of this is worthy of a few sentences on the main article, not a full article. Killuminator (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original comment was referring to the 10 March stuff, which was the blow-up, and around the creation of this article. She was on medical leave till Easter, so update by Easter was almost certain (and probably always the plan). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because we know where she is (or change the title or something).Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't that just be a move? Why say delete, when just because an event is over doesn't mean an article shouldn't exist. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move the article doesn't seem to be a violation of Wikipedia:BLPGOSSIP. As said by other editors the article not only continued to receive coverage, but also represents the loss of trust in a news source, and it doesn't seem to cause any harm to the subject (the conspiracy theories are called as such).

  Industrial Insect (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep however I support a renaming - the amount of speculation merits an article, albeit one shorter than the current article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a media event of no lasting impact, not even about the person, but about the fuss and media attention grabbing. - Altenmann >talk 23:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In this instance WP:BLPPUBLIC outweighs WP:BLPGOSSIP.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLPGOSSIP is never outweighed by BLPPUBLIC. There are other factors related to BLPPUBLIC that would come into play, such as related to BLPVICTIM, but BLPGOSSIP is a top level restriction no matter how famous a person is. — Masem (t) 04:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing in BLPGOSSIP to suggest that it is top level restriction. However, BLPPUBLIC is clear that If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. Kate's public absence and received substantial and sustained coverage from many leading media outlets. Frank Anchor 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and rename I don't like the title, but oddly this has become an important thing. In many ways it is about the nature of modern media. When first created, I think it was gossip at best. Now it's more. Further, as someone who really tries not to follow the English Royals (I honestly don't know the name of the person she's married to, though I could probably guess) I'm aware of this stuff against my will. It's not gossip at this point. The name of the article, however, is poor. Also mildly annoyed at the number of AfDs in such a short time. I get why (things are changing rapidly) but I still don't like it much. Hobit (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per the arguments put forth by Rwendland, Horse Eye's Back, and PK-WIKI. RudolfRed (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP and most importantly BLP. This topic does not deserve the breathless blow by blow it has received in this article and only warrants a few sentences at best in the main article. Pinguinn 🐧 07:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Saying that an article should be deleted because the topic violates the spirit of a policy has the same weight as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in other words none at all. As the proposer themselves stated above, the fact that the vast media and internet speculation has received significant coverage in RS thus passing the general notability guideline is not in contention. Multiple RS have already covered and commented on the implication and impact of this entire fiasco and this topic will be discussed in studies of western media and celebrity culture for years to come. --StellarHalo (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The !vote directly above this one cites an actual policy, not just the spirit, under which the article is excluded per WP:N. I can understand you might not read the whole thread, but when trying to encapsulate the delete arguments, you might engage with some of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing in the text of NOTGOSSIP or BLP being cited there, its just a vague hand wave to the policy... Note that nobody who has dug into the actual policy and guideline has been able to make an argument for deletion on those grounds stick, hence the appeal to their spirit not their letter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As elsewhere, the words on the page should not require explanation if read carefully. Writing WP:NOTGOSSIP is clearly shorthand for pasting the text:

  Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

  Now examine the text of the page in question. First the title: "Where is Kate?" Obviously a gossip column title. It certainly isn't encyclopaedic. What about the content of the article? Well now it says things like Her public absence received extensive international media coverage, which largely asked "Where is Kate?" in past tense. That, of course is a response to the shifting news and the rapid rewriting in response to new news, and indicates the article also fails on WP:NOTNEWS, but just concentrating on NOTGOSSIP, look at that warning about overly detailed articles that look like a diary and then look at this article, which has, for instance, 21 references to events happening on dates in March alone. So just for March we have on 4 March, on 5 March, and so on, also for 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 31st plus a 15th-17th March. Other months are also available. So this is very diary like. It is a blow by blow account based on primary sources, not a summary of a topic based on secondary sources. We are told what days she went shopping, for instance, and goodness me, the shutter speed and aperture of the camera taking a photo. Overly detailed? Yep. A lot of trivia? Yep.

  There is something notable and encyclopaedic here, but it is nothing to do with the question "Where is Kate?" No one wants to censor coverage of her cancer diagnosis, nor of the behaviour of British media, nor of anything else that is actually notable here. But that is not what this article is about. That information belongs in her biography, and if a spinout were necessary, this is not the spinout that would be called for. This article is about the gossip, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. I expect you won't agree, because you have made 33 comments so far in this AfD and it is clear where you sit on the issue, but no - no one who has cited NOTGOSSIP or NOTNEWS or any of the other NOT policies is making "just a vague hand wave to the policy." If the policy does not apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere, and that is a settled and considered view of this editor, and I expect of every other one who has cited that policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, when I wrote "per NOTGOSSIP and BLP" it meant I was directly citing those policies and therefore the texts of those policies were meant to speak for themselves. By reading the text of NOTGOSSIP it should not take a great leap of faith to understand why someone might oppose per that policy. Sirfurboy has very effectively described the reasoning for citing NOTGOSSIP, but surely not every !vote has to go into that much detail to be valid. Pinguinn 🐧 08:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's hard to understand how this article came to be accepted. This is the epitome of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Deb (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all the reasons stated above, but particularly WP:RECENT – the subject matter has already lost relevance for any more than a one sentence mention in the main article on the Princess of Wales. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: But particularly WP:RECENT? WP:RECENT says "Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." so how are you making a contentious deletion argument based on WP:RECENT? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we differentiate between a "contentious deletion discussion" and a "deletion discussion". There is already a 70% opinion in favour of deletion. Does the existence of the 30% make this contentious (I really don't know)? All I did was look at the current news coverage, both generally and in a quality newspaper. The general view gave me the impression that the "news" consisted of a celebrity backtracking on/apologising for their speculation and other news outlets looking retrospectively at the matter. The quality newspaper had nothing in the past week. To me that is a pretty rapid disappearance of the story. This is, of course, in addition to all the other deletion reasons. And I have not even got into the suggestion that the whole story was fuelled by Russian troll factories (see [9]) – surely Wikipedia is not on the side of the trolls? All I have done is given my opinion. You might question it, but you have not changed it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious in this context means not unanimous. Discussion are not votes, you appear to be counting votes? This particular discussion is extremely contentious, as far as I can tell its actually the most contentious serious of deletion discussion we've had on wiki this year (note that the first closed as keep very recently). I don't understand how more coverage (the troll factories stories) makes it less notable not more notable, how does that work? I'm not asking for your opinion to change, I'm questioning your interpretation of policy and guideline (which should be separate from your personal feelings about the topic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Interpretation of "contentious". As with so much of the guidance in Wikipedia, the term is not defined. I don't see anything that suggests the meaning "not unanimous". (2) you appear to be counting votes. I carefully used the word "opinions" instead of "votes". Nevertheless, relative numbers are something that go into the final decision-making mix. (3) The troll factories are something that makes it less notable for a serious encyclopaedia – because the whole subject has been artificially inflated above its true news value. (4) I should have made clear that I was talking about my opinions on how Wikipedia is meant to operate. Those start with the first of the WP:5P, especially the bit about not being a newspaper. In my thinking, that particularly expands into not being a tabloid newspaper. The advice on recentism includes "just wait and see". Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that advice would have been well followed if it had delayed the creation of the article until the dust had settled. Then decisions on whether there was sufficient notability for a separate article would have been much easier. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good faith way to argue that this is isn't a contentious discussion. That troll factories became involved makes it more notable for a serious encyclopedia, not less. That would appear to be misrepresenting the advice on recentism, wait and see would mean keep not delete and we are supposed to create articles for current events when they first meet the notability not wait... Per WP:NOTNEWS "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing except the photoshop controversy and cancer announcement even meets the definition of news. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What definition of news? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite an impressively energetic counter-argument, my opinion on whether this subject matter should have an article of its own remains unchanged – it should not. If one of the five pillars of Wikipedia says that this is not a newspaper, then that over-rules any guidance written by individual editors. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper... As in we don't publish original reporting. Not that we don't cover what real newspapers cover. I get that you disagree, but you can't manipulate things which don't agree with you into agreeing with you because you disagree... At this point the only thing you can point to is WP:IAR, which is a valid argument but nobody has made it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back, even though it's a fun idea use your entire month's allocation of argument in just the first few days of April, I would recommend you disengage. You've now made over 40 edits and it could be construed as bludgeoning the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only bludgeoning if they keep repeating the same arguments. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side, I should probably also be disengaging(!), but just to say, for what it's worth, that it's a fine line between bludgeoning and ensuring a productive discussion that helps solidify consensus. I think @Horse Eye's Back's contributions have been restrained (many replies within !vote-threads rather than replies across many !vote-threads), and I've found their contributions helpful and interesting in clarifying my own thoughts. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I was bludgeoning because the discussion here as been so broad, if I felt I was just repeating myself to no end I wouldn't do it but people keep making new and inventive arguments (which is a boon to wikipedia, policies and guidelines unchallenged get stale). Out of an abundance of caution and respect for you I will take a step back. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Aaron, Ignatius, and HEB for the quick replies - I agree that everyone's comments have been made in good faith and there's definitely a difference between bludgeoning and good discussion. Hopefully the arguments will be helpful to the closer in assessing consensus; just important that they don't become redundant or cause people to shy away from participating. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original reporting is only 1 of the 4 points at notnews. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a news report, the article is not a who's who entry, the article is does not a purveyor of gossip or written as a celebrity diary... We've covered all of these above, none off the words written on that page as not allowed actually cover what is on this page, hence the invocation of the spirit not the letter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article, other than the photoshop controversy and cancer announcement (and tiny bit of analysis on media frenzy), is literally gossip on why people haven't been seeing her and every trivial detail on where she went. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something that actually happens. It's all just "analysis". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis can be either news or opinion, what we use here appears to be news... I would also note that gossip is "Something that actually happens" so reporting on gossip is news even thats the way you want to take this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis is not news. Analysis of news is still not news. Analysis on "omg nobody has seen her so she's sick" is only gossip and also not news. "She hasn't been seen in a year" is only borderline news and does not deserve an article since it's not an actual disappearance. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analsysis is very much news and very much what we're supposed to be including... Per WP:RS: "This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis is simply not news, which is an objective thing that happens. Reporting that people are spreading conspiracy theories is different from spreading conspiracy theories. The former is news while the latter isn't. Yellow journalists also are not reliable authors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are multiple media-covered narratives with established multidisciplinary relevance here. This meets WP:GNG and surpasses criticism of guides for WP:TABLOID and WP:RECENT topics. The strongest argument for keeping this is the diversity of coverage. This story was not only tabloid celebrity coverage, but also in the context of general contemporary social issues including medical privacy, AI image alteration, propaganda of multiple countries, and public right to know of the status of public figures. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: first of all, this topic falls within Wikipedia's scope and is covered at Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health and #Photograph controversy. The encyclopedic aspects lie in the proliferation of conspiracy theories (and sources exist to debunk this) and the Royal Family's use of disinformation (manipulated photograph).
  A significant challenge is that the UK mainstream media are unreliable on many aspects of the modern Royal Family due to close collaboration with Westminster Palace: they report rumour as fact, misattribute information that has come from royal PR teams, and construct mutually beneficially fictional narratives. International news sources do exist on this topic, but they are limited in their dependence on UK media and recency.
  Ultimately, I do believe this will be a significant topic in 10 years' time, but that we need sources not yet created to establish notability. I hope to soon read peer-reviewed scholarship analysing British media coverage of this event, social media reaction, effect on the public image of the Royal family and wider context as to the Royal Family's creation of propaganda. Without this, we cannot write a standalone encyclopedia article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move, third attempt at a deletion is getting desperate. A move or even redirect would be appropriate, considering how popular the article has become and how it is fully justified through links and references, and how the topic has become a media sensation in the Western World, the new article naming of public absence is adequate and makes sense to keep for people wanting to follow the story. Cltjames (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The only sensational part was the photoshop and cancer announcement, which don't seem notable enough to have their own article at this point. Like Bilorv said, if lots of analyses come in the future then these parts can have their own article. There is a ton of gossip around celebrities, and the speculation of why Catherine was missing is on par with gossip. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second attempt was closed on purely procedural grounds and the deletion review was closed as no consensus because too many people wanted many different things. It was just chaos due to multiple overlapping circumstances, not a rock solid ''keep'. Killuminator (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and not rename. Subject to the comments provided, the article should be kept. We should avoid subjective judgments of notability. Additionally, notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), and media coverage surrounding the subject remains significant (and reliable!), encompassing various perspectives and responses. Therefore, the article's relevance persists. The argument of WP:NOTGOSSIP does not hold up. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and that is precisely what the article predominantly (if not entirely) relies on. The same applies to articles like Paul is dead, as mentioned by other users. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:NOT: fancruft and trivia. The material is covered in the main article, Catherine, Princess of Wales#Photograph controversy, and this is sufficient. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Firefly. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Masem. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is tabloid gossip and speculation, and fails the ten-year test. Any actual encyclopedic information can be merged into the main article. – bradv 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, gossip and speculation. Agree with above that if there’s any RS cited content, it can be carefully merged into the main article following the guidelines of living persons for biographical articles. Kierzek (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, if unpleasant to some. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether it's unpleasant. We have page on many, many unpleasant subjects. The reason I think it should be deleted is that it doesn't build good encyclopedic coverage of the underlying topic. I agree with Bilorv that in ten years' time we may end up with an encyclopedic article on this subject. But at the moment, the secondary sources don't exist to make a page that isn't just regurgitating media fluff about what turned out to be the poorly-managed prelude to the announcement of the Princess' illness. It's a WP:POVFORK where the point of view being privileged is that of conspiracy theorists and tabloid editors. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the doctor prescribes WP:NOT with extra doses of WP:UCS. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename My position hasn't changed after three AfDs and an RM. Yes, the coverage was ridiculous. But it was notable, it sustained for weeks, and it generated a conversation that was covered by a plethora of reliable sources that extend far beyond the tabloids. That means it satisfies our notability requirements. That this coverage is even more reprehensible with hindsight is irrelevant.LM2000 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but keep the information Does Kate have an article focused on her media appearances, or any controversies? Or is there even one about royal controversies in general? Most, or all, of the info contained in this current article could be moved somewhere else and linked to from the main article.

Hol-Tangings (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the following information about her cancer diagnosis and publicity photo are included in Catherine, Princess of Wales already:

Kensington Palace announced on 17 January 2024 that Catherine had undergone a planned abdominal surgery for an undisclosed medical condition that was not cancer, after she had been admitted to The London Clinic the previous day.^[1][2] She postponed all of her public engagements and duties until after Easter that year.^[3] The subsequent speculation about Catherine's absence and health prompted various conspiracy theories and attracted extensive media attention.^[4][5] Catherine announced on 22 March, through a video message filmed by BBC Studios, that post-operative tests had found cancer, and the palace said she had been undergoing chemotherapy since late February.^[6][7]

In early March 2024, the Associated Press, AFP, Reuters and Getty Images withdrew from publishing a Mother's Day photograph of Catherine and her children, that was attributed to her husband and accompanied by a personal message from her.^[8] The Associated Press later explained that they issued a "kill order" because of concerns regarding digital alteration of the image at its source.^[9] AFP and Reuters raised similar concerns.^[10][11] The following day, in a message posted by Kensington Palace, Catherine apologised for any confusion created and said she had personally edited the family photograph that was shared publicly.^[12][13] The incident occurred after Catherine had begun chemotherapy treatment for cancer.^{[14][ 13:46, 4 April 2024 ]}

Sources

^ Rhoden-Paul, Andre; Coughlan, Sean (17 January 2024). "Catherine, Princess of Wales, in hospital after abdominal surgery". BBC News. Archived from the original on 17 January 2024. Retrieved 17 January 2024. ^ Kindelan, Katie (23 March 2024). "Kate Middleton: A timeline of her cancer diagnosis, surgery and absence from public duties". Good Morning America. Archived from the original on 22 March 2024. Retrieved 23 March 2024. ^ Coughlan, Sean (29 January 2024). "King Charles leaves hospital as Kate recovers at home". BBC News. Archived from the original on 29 January 2024. Retrieved 30 January 2024. ^ Relph, Daniela (29 February 2024). "Analysis: A royal dilemma as public curiosity over Kate's health grows". BBC News. Archived from the original on 9 March 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2024. ^ Mercedes Lara, Maria (14 March 2024). "Kate Middleton's Surgery Recovery and Photo Controversy: Everything to Know". People. Archived from the original on 14 March 2024. Retrieved 14 March 2024. ^ Coughlin, Sean (22 March 2024). "Princess of Wales says she is undergoing cancer treatment". BBC News. Archived from the original on 22 March 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024. ^ Foster, Max; Said-Moorhouse, Lauren (22 March 2024). "Catherine, Princess of Wales, announces she has cancer". CNN. Archived from the original on 23 March 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024. ^ "Picture agencies pull Kate photo amid 'manipulation' concerns". Sky News. 10 March 2024. Archived from the original on 10 March 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2024. ^ Phillipp, Charlotte (10 March 2024). "Kate Middleton's 2024 Mother's Day Photo 'Killed' After Associated Press Alleges the Image Was 'Manipulated'". People. Archived from the original on 11 March 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2024. ^ McCluskey, Mitchell (10 March 2024). "News agencies recall image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, citing manipulation concerns". CNN. Archived from the original on 11 March 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2024. ^ Mackintosh, Thomas (10 March 2024). "Princess of Wales: Kate image withdrawn by five news agencies amid 'manipulation' concerns". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 March 2024. Retrieved 21 March 2024. ^ "Kate admits editing Mother's Day photo". BBC News. 11 March 2024. Archived from the original on 11 March 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2024. ^ Perry (11 March 2024). "Kate Middleton Apologizes for 'Confusion' Over Family Photograph That Caused Controversy". People. Archived from the original on 11 March 2024. Retrieved 11 March 2024. ^ Coughlan, Sean (22 March 2024). "Kate cancer diagnosis rewrites story of past weeks". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 25 March 2024.

For those who are voting keep, or to keep the information within her biographic article, what else needs to be kept? What is the proposed scope of "Where is Kate?" that goes beyond those paragraphs? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Added permanent link with time for attribution. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage within the article has increased considerably since the start of the afd, and now I think that nothing other than what I mention at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales#Simplicity and concision needs to be added. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge with Princess Kate’s article. Clearly a notable topic but when content possibly in violation of BLPGOSSIP is removed, it can easily be covered in the parent article. One of the best features of a redirect is that the history is preserved, so if this story evolves and has lasting coverage several months or years from now, it can be restored as a standalone article. Carson Wentz (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a huge violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Besides maybe a paragraph on her article, this doesn't belong on here, especially not at this title. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With that said, if the article was at literally any other title, I'd be more fine with it. I think the article title itself is what rubs me the wrong way, not necessarily the content (though I don't get why this is an article in the first place). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation I closed the 2nd AFD so I won't be closing this one as I consider my participation involved. But reading this discussion over, it seems like some of the Delete votes, those who provide no policy basis for their opinion, seem like they are editors who are embarrassed at the existence of this article on Wikipedia, rather than due to a careful read of the article and analysis of its sources. It doesn't read like gossip, in fact, it discusses gossip as it pertains to this event but, in itself, it is not gossip. I think that claim also is a disservice to editors who contributed to the article who I think took pains to maintain an integrity and write about the subject with a NPOV. I am not arguing Keep or Delete as I think it would interfere with my work here as a closer, I'm just asking that those editors arguing for Deletion actually judge the merits of the article and not dismiss it because they find the subject distasteful and not in keeping with an online encyclopedia. Whether this article is Kept, Deleted, Redirected, Merged or Renamed, thanks to those participating editors here who kept their focus on policy-related aspects of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the other hand, BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS are certainly relevant here. The problem I am having with the Keep votes here (apart from the WP:ITSNOTABLE ones, which a closer should discount anyway), is that they are arguing the point of why we could keep this article, rather than focusing on the main point, which is whether we should. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. I agree with Liz on all points. I closed the first AFD, and I too recuse. But it does seem to me that there is still room in this discussion for thoughtful consideration (and there certainly has been some already) of how this article does or does not fit into the scope of what Wikipedia's policies mean. We have chosen to base much of what we do on reliable sources, yet we retain our own role as editors shaping their material. The intersection IMO never has been cleanly defined, and grappling with that area might help the community resolve how it wishes to deal with information the reliable sources have provided. More broadly, it is gratifying to see this level of participation at Afd. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Liz. Wikipedia is Not censored. If it was it would harm the purpose of the encyclopedia, and the efforts of editors who put hundreds of hours into this site. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NOTCENSORED is not a bright line. It clearly says in the second paragraph that it does not apply to material that is problematic as regards WP:BLP. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is just plain wrong. Editors have naturally a "distaste" for poor editorial decisions, like having this article. They have a editorial objection to gossip mongering in any guise. They have an editorial objection to treatment of a BLP. They have an editorial disapproval of manufactured claims of long-term meaning with no backing of independent sources in serious study, and the elevation of things out of context, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the AFDs or even BLPGOSSIP issues, the way this article is constructed represents a growing problem with how we approach topics on current events against the spirit of NOTNEWS. We're supposed to summarize news sources, and instead, this article maintained running coverage of the news (at least, related to her absence) without clearly establishing that this was going to have enduring significance. As a counter example, we have similarly constructed articles related to the Gaza conflict or the Ukraine conflict, but both of those have firmly established their long-term importance. The issue in this one is where the media opt to focus on something that they consider important but that is not related to longevity aspects. It was poorly approached at the start from this angle, and then you couple the issues of BLP/GOSSIP atop it and it makes it that much worse. Masem (t) 18:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS. This is unencyclopaedic gutter dribble. TarnishedPath^talk 04:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:LASTING fail: This is fundamentally a media topic, and the sources for a quality article on this topic really should be peer-reviewed, but do not yet exist. Bilorv is right about that. Non-appearances are not events. A public figure visiting a store is not notable. The shutter speed of a camera is especially not notable, unless the episode is an example in an article about photo manipulation, where it could only be one of several if not many. Similarly, there is meat here for an article about the bread-and-circuses aspects of British monarchy, and/or its relationship to the press, but there too it would only be a single example, where surely Prince Harry and Princess Diana would be better-known instances. Some of the keep votes appear to believe that distaste motivates the delete votes. Possibly some, but not this one. Kate Middleton voluntarily became a public figure, and as insane as I find the fascination of a certain demographic with the royal family, I am possibly not as concerned with the BLP aspects of this as I should be. I speak for myself here. But speaking for policy, pray tell what lasting effect this episode is likely to have? The mind boggles. This really is fancruft. We don't even know what her illness actually is; "cancer" is not a thing. Possibly if it were known whether this was liver cancer or uterine cancer or ovarian cancer or pancreatic cancer some research effort might result. But we don't. Instead we have an article about a month in which the British press lost its mind, which it does, mind you, on the regular. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see Susan G. Komen for the Cure for example. But this is not that. Elinruby (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per my previous reasoning. The topic has garnered considerable media attention and continues to do so as the narrative still evolves. The content may be amended if required though on the first glance it seems fine to me. I would not characterise it as libellious or otherwise improper. This is an important episode in the said person's public life which cannot be properly addressed in the overview article, so having a standalone article is in place. I support moving it to a better (more respectful) title. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS — or NOTGOSSIP if there is such a thing! The topic is thoroughly unencyclopedic and the title should be downright embarrassing to whomever dreamed that up... That's your most likely search term? Really?!?!? Carrite (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bilorv's analysis of what this article/story is really about is on-point, as is Liz about the distaste motivation of many delete !voters. I come down on the side of keeping what we have, and evolving it towards what Bilorv wants to see as the sources become available. If it were possible to move it to draft space and keep there until those sources materialize, I would support that instead. Vadder (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do note that someone tried to close this as no consensus, citing the quality of arguments unlike the vote count which was used in the first nomination's closure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminator (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first nomination's keep counts were way more overwhelming than this one (or this one's delete counts). Aaron Liu (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've left a note on the attempted closer's talkpage. It was a non-admin closure before the seven days had expired; Silver seren was right to revert. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a regrettable vote in favor of keep, as I think the whole affair was rather distasteful. However, per policy, distasteful things can merit encyclopedic coverage. In this case, the gossip itself became the subject of widespread and sustained coverage. While the gossip alone would not merit even a mention in the article on Kate, the gossip was so widespread as to inspire independent coverage of it. I also definitely see this as an incident where LASTING is already fulfilled, given that the BBC is in hot water for its coverage of the affair. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read that link? It lists a number of times the BBC is "in hot water" over its coverage of the Monarchy. This is just another time. No, there are no reliable independent sources with study on the media and these events, nor study on sociology and these events, nor study on the monarchy and these events, nor study on medical privacy and these events, nor study on anything and these events. If there are going to be those studies, they have not been published yet, and its definitely NOT Wikipedia's job to anticipate them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We needn't anticipate anything, given the coverage of the gossip and its fallout has already been discussed in reliable sources: USA Today, The Seattle Times (originally published by Mercury News), Harper's Bazaar, etc. Heck, the Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the matter. This is a notable incident with widespread, reliable coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those are studies of anything. Wikipedia is not the news, and Harper's Bazaar, you can't be serious. Nor does gossip not become gossip when it is repeated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to misunderstand NOTNEWS, which is meant to prevent articles on common incidents the receive coverage (for example, a one-off, small-time robbery of a non-notable bank). It does not preclude articles on news items. Otherwise, half the articles that make it to ITN wouldn't qualify for articles before they could no longer appear at ITN. You seem also confused about the purpose of an article like this. This isn't to repeat gossip, but to describe it and its impact as reliable sources have. Wikipedia routinely discusses gossip and conspiracy theories without simply repeating it. ~ Pbritti (tealk) 23:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Hundreds of thousands of people a year develop some form of cancer. The only reason why her diagnosis would be special is that she is the Princess of Wales ie a celebrity. She went to a store! I would say alert the media, but apparently someone did. Because... she is a celebrity. Do your shopping trips draw news coverage? there is simply no event in this story that is notable if she is not a celebrity, and I actually question whether we need to know the fine details of her movements even if she unquestionably *is* famous. She is notable because she is the Princess of Wales, not for her engagement calendar of choreographed events, or her shopping trips or her health care. Should she shoot her husband, start a punk bank, delver food to Gaza or quarrel with the King there might possibly be an argument for the notability of her actions. But not for going to a store! It's a complete non-event. The media/online/public frenzy that *is* arguably notable is simply what she deals with on an ongoing basis. There is nothing unusual about the past couple of weeks except the exact flavour of the recent nuttiness. So the scope would need to be encompassing and not just about this particular Tulip frenzy. I just can't formulate a keep rationale. And I am an inclusionist and I am trying. By the way, I grant that I am not in Britain but when I typed "Where is Kate" into Google News an hour ago, my most recent result returned was 15 days old. I did see something yesterday about somebody apologizing for a joke. But it's hardly the ongoing feeding frenzy that some people seem to think is happening, and I wonder if they understand that the more that they themselves click on these articles the more of them that they (personally, not everyone) will get. Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to not understand, none of what you imagine requires a new article on Wikipedia, including a BLP problematic COATRACK. You seem confused that Wikipedia is just an article creating mouthpiece for whatever scandal de jour. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, April 2024 (UTC)

• delete per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and there's probably more I could throw in. Look, we have a section on "impact" which is just nonsense: there's no way there is enough distance from this event for anyone to be having a good idea of what the consequences will be. The rest is just blow-by-blow repetition of news coverage when a reasonable person has to figure that the cancer itself is going to have a much more substantial impact. This comes across as WP-papparazzi "oh, we have no choice but to publicize this— our readers demand it!" or more accurately, "our slavish devotion to making an article on everything that shows up in the major media demands it." And while I'm at it, this article also exists because of our seeming inability to summarize anything. At best the incident, in a reasonable, readable encyclopedia, would be a few sentences. This poject needs editors, not just writers. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Masem and Mangoe. Fundamentally, this violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP and I don't see this having WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The article may of course be recreated, but in its current state WP:TNT is the better option at our disposal. Pilaz (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many of the keep arguments above. Liz makes great points about the rationale of some of those voting for deletion. JM (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.