Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queue

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]
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 I disagree the nominators assessment here. The coverage is increasing, and is covered in a large number of reliable sources from all political leanings and multiple countries. 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]
Merge as above - agree fully with original nomination. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can easily fit in the section within the main article. Keivan.f^Talk 04:39, 16 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]
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]