Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queue

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wslack (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 19 September 2022 (amending my view). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Queue

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

The Queue (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)

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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 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. Reywas92Talk 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]
Amending this to Keep given more news coverage such as [this article].
  • 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. Paradoxsociety 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]
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]
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]
For additional context to the significance of this event, see Yahoo's documenting of the '52 Lying in State Queue which has no "cultural phenomenon" associated with it, despite it being a thing at the time also. We should be surprised if there wasn't a queue. Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss on why there being a primary topic would mean a need to make a widely covered secondary aspect with dozens of RS have to be two lines. We don't do that for, say, Covid-19 secondary topics. And navel-gazing is an introspective thing - it's often given as the reason why there is a de facto higher burden for a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, but I can't see why it pertains here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the "secondary aspect" is not distinct from the first, is in context of the first. That we have succeeded in bloating "the queue" with opinions and other coverage isn't evidence of significance - it's evidence of recentism and a lack of editorial oversight. Navel gazing is the act of focusing on one thing to the expense of wider issues - in this case apparently a long queue and a 24 hour news cycle desperate to fill content that we're now just going to uncritically reflect. Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject if this article, a very long queue, is a significant event of the time, with various royals greeting people in the queue. More importantly, the fact that this queue is part of an historic event makes it notable. There is significant news coverage of this queue Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's significant, notable, and has sufficient information to write an article. Merging would only lose infomation to little effect. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has obviously become notable - a huge amount of varied independent sources are already in the article. Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since this article was created, The Queue has received world wide coverage, with many news agencies from across the world visiting and doing reports on location. 31.125.77.82 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Paul[reply]
  • Keep per Seddon. The queue to see Elizabeth II's coffin has gotten extensive coverage, and been the topic of frequent public discussion. Also, the article has been expanded a lot since this AFD was proposed, so pruning it to make it fit into the death article will remove lots of presumably notable information.- 87.58.119.203 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above comments. Article certainty meets notability criteria too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Has clearly become its own distinct topic with enough content for its own article. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly a landmark event and has its own distinct characteristics separate from the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner74 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I would support the article being moved to a more relevant and less ambiguous title. Compusolus (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm just not seeing how this gets over (a) WP:NOPAGE, and (b) the requirement for lasting significance. In 10 years, will people really be talking about the queue apart from the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, or at that time will it just be "and a huge queue formed"? Just doesn't seem like we need more than a summary in the main article, but I appreciate that I am swimming against a strong current at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although modify the title to make it more specific. JadeKrusade (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The three main arguments given by Merge voters are those given by Rhododendrites above and a third line (no pun intended) that is captured in H. Carver's assessment that "recent news reports give it undue weight". I feel such a judgement is not for Wikipedia to make—I cannot cite the exact policy but it runs against the spirit of, say, WP:SYNTH for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources (e.g. "Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it" from the BBC) as a mistake on the sources' part. Koncorde's remark that this is "navel-gaving" pushed by an "event-starved media" falls into the same error in even more obviously editorialising language. I have the same unease with the claim that our perception of The Queue in retrospect will reduce to "and a huge queue formed". This is a subjective judgement which runs contrary to the consensus in reliable sources: so it is essentially WP:OR. From another angle, it is also against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL to guess at what judgements might suggest themselves in the future. Implicit appeals to common sense—it "just doesn't seem like" it merits an entry—hold no weight. In relation to WP:NOPAGE, discussion of The Queue as a cultural phenomenon (such as the flash fiction by Will Dunn or comparisons to brunch) is better confined to its own entry rather than clogging up the already long and complex entry about the demise of the crown. It may be "just" a queue, but love it or hate it, it is a queue which reliable sources have covered in depth as a standalone topic. —Kilopylae (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This'll be my only response in this thread (it's just too much, and headed in a pretty predictable direction).
      for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources - Nobody has done that. We need evidence of lasting significance to demonstrate notability (which we do not yet have), and we need a reason for this to be separate from the main article (notability is required but not alone sufficient for this). This is a subjective judgement It is no more or less subjective/crystal bally as the prediction that coverage will continue. These arguments are effectively the contradictory advice given at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID (i.e. wait to create an article, and wait to delete an article). When someone ignores the former advice, the best we can do is use our judgment/experience to evaluate whether it's exceedingly likely there will continue to be coverage of this subject. My reading is that we will not see sustained coverage of the queue as distinct from the rest of the funeral, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page is too long for a merge into the main funeral article, which is already long, and The coverage of The Queue shows it will likely have a place in the British public consciousness like Clap for Our Carers does. It's also possibly the holder of a world record, although that hasn't been confirmed yet. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 15:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. The death of Elizabeth II has received saturation-level coverage in British media and it would be possible to write articles about even minor aspects of it as they pass the GNG. However as an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to do that. Instead we summarise the important information and leave out the more minor details. I'm not convinced that this aspect of the death will be significant, say, 10 years from now, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING we are only supposed to have articles on events with long-term significance. Yes, the article is too long to be merged into the funeral one, but that's the point - this level of coverage is too detailed. Hut 8.5 16:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never thought I'd be saying this, but the WP:SIGCOV of The Queue itself is way, way, over the GNG boundary, indeed there has been more written in very reliable sources about The Queue than there have been about other notable elements of the death and funeral of QE2. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue is now notable enough entirely independent of the State Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Main article is already extremely lengthy and a separate article purely dedicated to The Queue makes sense.
gbrading (ταlκ) 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue should be kept separate from Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. It has so much information surrounding it, plus adding it to the main article regarding Queen Elizabeth's death would make that article very long. UpdateWindows (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue itself has achieved notability and has had independent media covering separate from that of the state funeral itself. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue is arguably notable in equal amount as the funeral itself. Anecdotally there is more discussion of the queue than the funeral itself and more concretely the queue has received international coverage for days. I'd wager that many future users of Wikipedia will be looking for the information and trivia surrounding the queue in comparative amounts to the funeral itself. GirlDoingMaths 21:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the aforementioned reasons of notability. GuardianH (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, the general consensus is that this article should be kept. As such, this discussion should be closed. Ashleyknowsthings (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to something more sensible once things have returned to normal. The current name is suffering badly from recentism. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event has been incredibly significant, seeking headlines all around the world. The spectacle of the true length and events during this queue is one that should be remembered as an event itself rather than solely part of the Queen's funeral. This is the first time in a long time something like this has happened. Also, there are many more insignificant events and articles on Wikipedia. Something like the queue, with dozens of thousands of participants and it being published worldwide should not be on the chopping block. MichaelDeng06 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But rename to something like Queue to Elizabeth II lying in state.(talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Queue&oldid=1111215997"