Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queue: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 18 September 2022

The Queue

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

This event fails WP:NEVENT, as this is neither something with WP:LASTING significance nor an event with wide geographical scope and could frankly be deleted under WP:DEL-REASON#8. Any content here can be appropriately covered within the article on Elizabeth II's death, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which is a more appropriate location to describe this article's subject. As such, I am proposing that we blank-and-redirect this article, as this is a non-notable event where any coverage would be better placed in the proper context of the death article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Christianity, Geography, England, and Islands. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely broad international coverage, not all feeding from local sources certainly gives a reasonable indication that it is notable. Additionally, not all the available content could reasonably be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article, so it would also act as a reasonable spinoff article. The BLAR didn't merge the then present content (already shorter than the current level) into that article, additionally. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOPAGE, There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I think this is clearly one of those times; we're covering the line to see the queen in this article. Even for Evita, the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her or attend her funeral in a single section in her biographical article. I see no reason why the queue itself is expected to have lasting coverage that is better situated in its own article rather than in the broader context of the article on Elizabeth's death and state funeral. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her. -- What you claim here isn't reflected in the text of the article. 3 million people gathered. But a gathering is not the same as a queue. Seddon ^talk 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this considered for deletion? "The Queue" is a cultural phenomenon and a historic event which is being reported on in newspapers and news channels around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessdawn (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is considered for deletion per the rationale presented in the nomination. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue; obviously does not need a separate article. The international coverage and wildly premature "cultural phenomenon" claim is not independent of the broader news around the death and funeral, and the content does not warrant a split. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~I agree. It's certainly worth mentioning The Queue (and I do enjoy the capitalisation), but the information here belongs in the main article.,~~ A.D.Hope (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue, pending a couple days to see if there's sustained coverage. Rather humored this made it to the Christianity AFD sorting, but I suppose it is actually appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. There's already a more notable queue in British culture, it's the queue for Wimbledon tickets and it has appeared every year since 1922, yet only gets a mention in Wimbledon Championships#Tickets 141.143.213.47 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (updated) per WP:NEVENT I disagree the nominators assessment here. The second criteria in NEVENT Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources very clearly applies here. It has resulted in the hospitalisation of 45 people, is being assessed as being a potential world record, the coverage is only increasing and is also likely to be the focus of future scientific studies. In addition:

Meets WP:GEOSCOPE -- Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely)
Meets WP:DEPTH -- The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Times...
Meets WP:GNG -- gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.

Unlike the generic queues for Wimbledon, this queue... THE Queue... is itself notable. Seddon ^talk 02:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree (about Wimbledon). The organizers call it "The Queue"[1][2] ("The Queue has capital letter status because it is a Wimbledon institution"), the press call it "The Queue" (or the "Wimbledon Queue" or "The Queue at Wimbledon", etc.)[3][4][5][6][7] "The Wimbledon queue is not a mere queue but, as the signs call it, ‘The Queue.’ It is an event, a feature of the championships since the early 20th Century." - so while mourners queuing to see Elizabeth lying-in-state is a noteworthy event, and the press have dubbed it "The Queue", it's not notable that they've dubbed it that, and there are challengers from other famous queues. 141.143.213.47 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This event is likely to have set a world record so I'm game for creating a disambiguation page if appropriate for other lesser queues. Seddon ^talk 23:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - agree fully with original nomination. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it can easily fit in the section within the main article, but wait at the moment to see how the whole thing develops until Monday. Keivan.f^Talk 04:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems that we don't have to wait until Monday. The page has been expanded and can be a standalone article. Keivan.f^Talk 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not yet convinced of its independent notability in a week in which lots of things are going to be big or a bit (?) surprising. I'd say that if in a year it looks like it was, then try recreating it and prove us wrong in a calmer time, but for now I think it should just be within the death/funeral article. DBaK (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Not every current event needs an article, and this one is hardly notable. Antoniciagala (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I think the scale of this gathering of mourners is notable enough to get mentioned in the main article on the Queen's funeral, but unless some major event happens within the line itself, I don't think "A Particularly Long Line Of People" necessitates an article in and of itself, let alone a name with the gravitas of "THE QUEUE". Peribirb (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "gravitas" that is making that name be used, it's because lots of sources are calling it that. Now if it ends up being partially spun off into a lying in state article, obviously that would also be accurate. But COMMONNAME would make this a logical name for its current form (although a disambiguator could certainly be added) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue. I was excited about the possibility of a The Queue article, but I calmed down and instead created the Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue subsection. I think the sensible course of action is to let that section develop and then we can review the situation and (re)create a spin-off article if needed. I suggest that if a spin-off article is needed, it makes sense to create something like The lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II, including content on The Queue, rather than a separate Queue article. That all said, I do agree with the article creator that The Queue has attracted considerable domestic and international attention (e.g., CNN, Le Parisien, Courrier International, Zentralplus). I would encourage those concerned about WP:RECENTISM to help chop out the trivia elsewhere in the Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A day on and I've changed my mind. The article has grown significantly, and plenty more news stories have come out and have not yet been covered in the article. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It is getting too long to be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. I would suggest that a Lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II article including events in Westminster Hall would be a more sensible way of carving up the material, otherwise it's a bit unclear where some events should be covered (e.g., someone rushing at the catafalque). Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another day on, and can we just Snow it now? Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait It'll be gone by Monday: take a view after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alasdairking (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the current peak at 4.9km is 1.1km shy of the longest ever funeral queue of 6km.[8] We should avoid an early SNOW close, as this queue might exceed that over the weekend. Fences&Windows 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's 5 miles long, not 5km, so it will be the new world record holder. Fences&Windows 14:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but Wait to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue. I do not believe that the queue in itself will have sufficient permanent notability to deserve an article of its own. It may be that the Lying in State will deserve its own article. Premature SNOW closure would be inappropriate. Much better to wait until after the funeral, when an experienced editor can restructure all the articles relating to the demise of the Crown and Accession of Charles III. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The queue is not notable in and of itself. Recent news reports give it undue weight. When the Queen's father died there was a similar queue. A year from now it will only need a passing mention in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. "The Queen lay in state before her funeral. [number] million queued for up to 14 hours to see her in a queue that stretched [miles] to [endpoint]." That's all the lasting and historical impact that will come from it. H. Carver (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Monday. Personally I would want this to be merged with the main article but I can see that there is substantial coverage about it. Vida0007 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article, we really don't need an article about the line. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge. — Scott • talk 12:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments above; it may become (through coverage) worthy of its own page but current coverage doesn't support that. I do think it will deserve its own section within the merged article if the feature coverage continues. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then Merge per above. This allows the details and references to be gathered on its own page and then added to the other one afterwards. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting huge coverage in the British media currently. If you Google "the queue", it currently takes you on to it. Given that we have articles for Hajj cough and Mobile Bay jubilee in the "Crowds" category already, this seems to meet our standards for notability. I can see that a lot of folk are voting for Merge. I don't mind that option too much, but the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article is very long already, so I have a slight preference to keep "The Queue" as a separate article. Epa101 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cultural phenomenon getting widespread international attention. Like the Queue itself, this article is only going to get longer over the coming days and is likely to overwhelm any article into which it is merged. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There is too much content in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article already, so merging may not be the best idea. It is not possible to predict the long-term impacts of "The Queue" by itself at present, nor is it possible to predict whether it will be known as "The Queue" on a long-term basis. However, there is enough verifiable content to sustain an article. --RFBailey (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big coverage in the UK media currently. Too much content in this article to merge into the already large base article. It'd be good to split things off where necessary XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - It will be easier to decide once the lying-in-state has concluded on Monday morning. It's likely that we should merge, but given the amount of material currently in the article under discussion, it's worth hanging on and seeing what happens. Patience is free. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This event does not fail WP:NEVENT as it is certainly: "significant (a 5 mile long queue), interesting (it's a 5 mile long queue!), and unusual enough (it's a 5 mile long queue to see the coffin of a dead monarch, possibly the last monarch in human history who will ever receive this much attention) to deserve attention or to be recorded". It is likely WP:LASTING in its significance as I think most observers recognize the absurdity of a five mile long queue to see a dead monarch in modern times. Paradox society 22:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the many reasons stated above. It can easily be part of the main page, no need to have a separate one. Eccekevin (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Monday as many have said, then merge if/when it becomes clear this is the right choice. The Queue is certainly interesting as of now, but it will likely not be as notable in a year. In addition, I find the cultural significance stated in the article to be jumping the gun a little; the Queue has only existed for three days. How can we possibly know if it's culturally significant? If it proves to be somewhat significant in the long term, it can be given its own section in Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue, as it is a part of a larger event rather than a standalone incident. The amount of notable details will likely fit there. However, it may prove worthy of its own article in the end; it's worth waiting as this is still an ongoing event. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 00:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, once the lying in state has finished, Merge. EmilySarah99 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big coverage in the UK and international media.—Champeillant (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree KEEP, I am researching queue behaviour and only found this after reading Elizabethh II death, and a redirection to The Queue. 86.160.53.162 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II because we literally do not need a separate article about a queue - even a temporarily prominent one - at an event, when we already have an article about the event. Thparkth (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but at very least the wp:Lemma is ambigous. See for instance Death and state funeral of George VI. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the queue is something special and too large for a merge. Uwappa (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– too much content to make a merge reasonable, enough sourcing, and part of such a major historic event that concerns of recentism are irrelevant. However it could be moved to Queue to see the coffin of Elizabeth II to have a less vague title. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note the article has considerably expanded since this AfD began. In particular, edits late on 16 September 2022 added considerable material. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its gotten enough standalone coverage as a significant cultural event aside from the Queens funeral, and too long to just merge into the article. Its a once in 70 years event, I don't think its necessary to try and keep it all within one rapidly expanding article, especially considering the myriad of standalone articles for american cultural and political events. jonas (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. This article got >16000 views yesterday. I had an article (Jewish Indian theory) in yesterday's DYK on the front page and that got fewer views. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's a topical news item at the peak of its importance and interest, and the news media having (Definitive!) Nounified an event has driven engagement. Will it still be topical next week? Will it still be in a year, or will we simply remember that the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II had X mourners in Y days with the queue reaching Z miles at its peak? 146.198.240.71 (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was erring on the side of Merge but having read this BBC article - Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it (which I don't think is yet in article) combined with the other material now in the article I have no doubt this is a substantial standalone topic that's going to have longevity. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough content for a standalone article now. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed merge into Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Entire article could easily be condensed into a very short paragraph. However, I'd wait a few weeks until the surge of WP:RECENTISM has died down, as it will be easier to manage once the edit frenzy abates. Cnbrb (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has received a ton of coverage and will continue to do so. I think people will be researching this particular event as its own standalone thing in many years from now. The only thing that I'd maybe re-consider is the title of the article, "The Queue" is a popular name given to it, but maybe there's a better name that is more encyclopaedic. Jayden (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have already voted but I think the article is in a much better place than it was when the AfD nomination was initiated XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I'm not sure how WP:LASTING the event will be, it has been widely covered in-depth in international media from multiple angles and and with analysis which would seem to satisfy WP:NEVENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakelot1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass notability just at a skim, and I’ve seen some very stupid, obscure things pass as “notable” for having the barest minimum of sources. Agree that it’s too long to merge unless it’s drastically trimmed. Also support renaming; current title is both informal and vague and will likely not persist into the foreseeable future. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Talk about a flash in the pan. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has expanded since the nomination and will continue to do so. Too large to merge. Receiving enough standalone coverage separate to the main goings-on. Meets WP:NEVENT in my view. 49 TL 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG as is already mentioned in hundreds of RS. Abolish the monarchy, not this article. – Meena • 13:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this event meets WP:NEVENT given the majority of the sources mentioned are articles about how unique this event is and it is a reflection of the unique British queuing culture. For this it meets notability not due to popularity but because of coverage of the unusual behaviour displayed by people going to queue. FeWorld (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic has received significant national and international coverage, and much of its content would be out of scope for the page on the Queen's death. It is much like the Clap for Our Carers page; despite both their limited timescales, the amount of cultural commentary they have received is notable and would have an undue weight if properly merged into their respective main articles. Wikipedia is not written on paper, and there is more than enough room for a well-researched article like this. --Voello _talk 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The overall scale of The Queue along with the standalone coverage specifically of The Queue itself definitely err into the realms of WP:NEVENT. Definitely worth renaming the article after The Queue finally dissapates (perhaps turning 'The Queue' into a redirect to this particular post-rename article, or a WP:DISAMBIG similar to The Queen), but, for the time being, seeing as the present WP:COMMONNAME for The Queue is 'The Queue', renaming this article would be best postponed for the time being. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk | contrib) 15:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur that whilst a rename at some point in the future may be likely but for now, WP:COMMONNAME holds for "The Queue". Seddon ^talk 15:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage has been extensive with articles in most major news outlets. Easily meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would keep the article because it seems to have become a major trend topic with a significant amount of reporting by both British and foreign news outlets, but I think there is scope to rename the article if there is conflict with other notable events colloquially called "the queue". Mitsuyashi (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the only alternative would be to place this content in the death and funeral article which is already extremely lengthy even prior to the funeral and may need splitting itself once things have settled down Davethorp (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed my mind due to the sheer amount of media coverage. It is definitely it's own thing and deserves its own article. Wait until Monday and then Merge into the Death of Liz 2 article. David G (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion based on WP:SNOW. It seems clear that the consensus is not to delete the article, and that a merge discussion would be more appropriate. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There are multiple news articles (English-speaking and other) talking about The Queue. It has gained fame status by now. Mhapperger (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even CNN are referencing it as "The Queue", initially in light humour at a perceived British stereotype, but it has now gained worldwide media recognition as a quite unique phenomenon for the UK population in modern times. I think people are acting in bad faith generally over many articles related to the late Queen Elizabeth's death, and wikipedia should not get swayed by such opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceblink (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iceblink, I would not be accusing those with differing opinions in the AfD (or indeed, unnamed, unevidenced, editors elsewhere in the project) of bad faith. I'm familiar with both nom and a good third of those advocating merge/delete, and they are regulars who know what they are talking about, and do so in good faith. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are a few good folk, but seriously, Wikipedia and the Internet generally has been flooded by hate and ill-will in regard to Queen Elizabeth's death. The demonstrable affection shown by a five-mile queue in London drives these people literally to madness, I am sure. Iceblink (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must concur with User:Nosebagbear on this. Disagree all you might, but please keep in mind that a) the notability has expanded in the real world as time has passed but also b) the article itself has been transformed in the time since nomination. Even then, lets keep things focused on facts and policy. Seddon ^talk 23:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's never been such a queue, five miles, night and day, for four days, in any country ever in history Iceblink (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that an article on a queue is unusual, and hence can attract opposition, @Iceblink is right in saying that there is a strong lobby of hatred, and the hatred seems to be originating in the United States. Why the US is more hateful than parts of the former British Empire is beyond me, but it is a point to remember considering the weight that US editors have on Wikipedia. Mitsuyashi (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will become an important event because it shows how devoted people were to the queen and it will mean that there are more records of the phenomenon that this queue has become! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.156.236 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC) – Moved to correct location. Madeline (part of me) 21:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as arguments above. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass notability given the substantial coverage; it's probably too long by now to be reasonably merged into Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II while keeping any semblance of depth. RickMorais (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could benefit from a more formal/descriptive title but the LISQ will probably be the defining image/memory of this whole event, probably more so than the funeral itself in the long run.Danish Ranger (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While queuing is kinda a British stereotype, per the sourcing over the last couple of days this does seem to have become the definitive queue. At the present time the article clearly meets WP:SIGCOV, and with it currently being assessed for a Guinness World Record it may even meet the WP:LASTING criteria of WP:NEVENT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article is expanded and appears to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV including [9] 77.251.200.30 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close the AfD based on the fact there is a general consensus that we should keep the article. AfD request was made at a time when the article was stub-class and it has expanded very quickly XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many of the reasons above, although it should be renamed to Stage Funeral Queue of Elizabeth II. The main article is already long enough. TitaraPheonix (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have significant coverage as well as prominence. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's interesting to note how the nominee of this deletion discussion started with "This event fails WP:NEVENT". Only three days later, that statement is clearly now very wide of the mark. I suppose there must come a moment where an event may transform from being something probably non-notable to actually being very notable. This unique queue is certainly a cultural moment in the making with a great deal of public attention and participation.Seaweed (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article does not fail WP:GNG, passes WP:NEVENT and is too long to be merged into the main article on the Queen's death and funeral. HenryTemplo 15:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Early on in this AFD, I was considering !voting to merge this to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II per WP:NOPAGE. However, since then, the Queue has definitely gained enough coverage to meet GNG, in part because it's grown to such massive proportions (both the article and the actual queue). Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II, as discussed above. Alex-h (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now As others have noted, it is a significant event in and of itself, dominating news in the UK and recieving coverage from elsewhere. There is too much content to realistically make it a section of another article without losing some of the detail and depth. Others have compared it to other articles, such as the one about Evita, pointing out that they have less detail, as some sort of justification that there should be less here. Just because we do not have the information to document something else, it does not mean that coverage of this even should suffer. If, as many commentators claim, it will not seem significant in years to come, it can always be merged in future, but it is likely to reduce the level of detail of new information contributors add if it is merged now. It may turn out to be the right decision to merge it eventually, but even if so, keeping it until that is clear is a safer bet, and it is certainly of interest at the moment. Sipos0 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly is a resonabily significant media event in its own right with a decent amount of coverage. The name will probably have to be clarified at some point in the future.--Llewee (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen articles for much more obscure events than this. It has received news coverage in international media like ABS-CBN News here in the Philippines. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 *'''Keep, for now''' As others have noted, it is a significant event in and of itself, dominating news in the UK and recieving coverage from elsewhere. There is too much content to realistically make it a section of another article without losing some of the detail and depth. Others have compared it to other articles, such as the one about Evita, pointing out that they have less detail, as some sort of justification that there should be less here. Just because we do not have the information to document something else, it does not mean that coverage of this even should suffer. If, as many commentators claim, it will not seem significant in years to come, it can always be merged in future, but it is likely to reduce the level of detail of new information contributors add if it is merged now. It may turn out to be the right decision to merge it eventually, but even if so, keeping it until that is clear is a safer bet, and it is certainly of interest at the moment. [[User:Sipos0|Sipos0]] ([[User talk:Sipos0|talk]]) 17:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' It clearly is a resonabily significant media event in its own right with a decent amount of coverage. The name will probably have to be clarified at some point in the future.--[[User:Llewee|Llewee]] ([[User talk:Llewee|talk]]) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' I've seen articles for much more obscure events than this. It has received news coverage in international media like [[ABS-CBN Corporation |ABS-CBN News]] [https://news.abs-cbn.com/amp/classified-odd/09/17/22/britain-draws-pride-from-the-queue-for-its-queen here] in the Philippines. [[User:HolaQuetzalcoatl|HolaQuetzalcoatl]] ([[User talk:HolaQuetzalcoatl|talk]]) 19:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)