Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep per WP:SNOWBALL. If you disagree with my close, you are welcome to leave comments on my talk page, but I will be out for the next several hours. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Middleton

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pippa Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is supposed to be a biography of a living person who is independently notable in their own right. Despite a long list of references, this article is not that. There is not a single reference in the current version which is not either: about Kate's sister or the Middleton family/business; about her role in the wedding; or coverage deriving from tabloid motivated interest (who's she dating, what her fashion sense is, and other such tabloid level topics). And like it or not, Wikipedia is not a tabloid - it doesn't matter how much coverage the likes of the Daily Mail devote to someone, Wikipedia does not use that as the test for whether a person is notable or not. Take out the tabloid sources, and you are left with an article which uses a patchwork of partial coverage to present a novel conclusion - that Pippa is notable in her own right. It's not supportable. And infact, for biographies at Wikipedia, the Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source at all, and therefore much of the content of this article is on very shaky ground indeed and should be removed whatever the outcome of this Afd (although obviously, to do so would make her appear non-notable, and thus deleteable). MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one from yesterday was speedy kept for process reasons, as the nominator had put it in the wrong place (on the page of the first Afd) and given no proper reason, and nobody else had voted delete. I've put it in the right place and given a proper reason, and others have already voted delete, so anyone wanting to speedy keep it now will have to justify it under another speedy keep criteria (there are no other 'rules' against renominations afaik). Note that a speedy keep is not the same as a WP:SNOW closure. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the conclusion of the first AfD, which was correct. Nothing new raised here to change that conclusion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I loathe celebrity culture, and as an ardent English republican, Keep, by Snowball, and slap the nominator with a trout for failing to consider the many Wikipedia readers who will come here for this biography; including over 647,000 yesterday. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ridiculous and utterly invalid argument. How many page views do you think we'd get if we hosted articles like Sex life of Pippa Middleton? How many of those 647,000 page views were people looking at the article wondering why the hell Wikipedia has an article on Pippa Middleton? You have absolutely no idea of course. As such, your trout's coming nowhere near my face today. On this evidence I'm not entirely you're qualified to be handling fish at all. Anytime you're ready to advance a proper rebuttal against the nomination, I'm all ears. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 647,000 pageviews yesterday.... there's a difference between "not notable" and "notable for reasons I don't like and am not interested in". The Land (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Land. Let's wait until this page starts getting less than a thousand views per day (it has had at least that many every day for the last two and a half months) before we re-consider it for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't start these stupid deletion wars also here -- the German Wikipedia is already unusable because of that. As of right now, "Pippa" is enough of a person of public interest to receive TV news coverage, yes, even outside UK. If you start discussing on the grounds of whether that is tabloid or not, you can in a next step start deleting the Hilton daughters. After all, where's the step from tabloid to "real" public interest therefore being worthy a Wikipedia entry? 84.182.106.24 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)— 84.182.106.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Already notable and will be increasingly so. Just wait for the chat show appearances, interviews and the like. Since this is about The Wedding, I should point out to those who were not watching that she played a significant role. And interest in her sister will not diminish. WP:NOTINHERITED covers situations such as this; being related to a notable person can elevate somebody to notability. And once notable, always notable, BTW. --AJHingston (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only obstacle being the part where you show how she's actually notable, instead of simply saying it. Now you mention it, an independent chat show appearance by someone who was primarily known for being connected to someone or something else, is infact pretty good marker for whether the said person has been so elevated. So, I promise, the minute I see her being interviewed on a chat show, I'll concede she's notable enough for a Wikipedia biography in her own right. Until then, it's just pure speculation. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Survived an AfD on German wikipedia. Knowing their deletionist tendencies, that means a lot. --Voyager (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens on German Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant here, it's a completely different project with completely different policies. They for example use Pending Changes in their editting software, which means that they can actually keep more articles about less notable people, as they don't have to worry about people inserting BLP violations into them, which is an ever present risk on articles like this where much of the information comes from unreliable tabloids and their tendency for unnattributed speculation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: The german Wikipedia is much mor deletionist than the english WP. And they are proud of it.... The german rfd, by the way, was withdrawn by the requester :-) --Adornix (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I could care less, it's still completely irrelevant. Not least because not everybody here will even be able to read German, so nobody has any way to verify these claims. MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not everybody" is not the same thing as "nobody". Furthermore, I can't read German, but I could use Google Translate to at least confirm that an AfD on the German Wikipedia was, in fact, an AfD. However, I haven't actually seen the German AfD yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. Even if everybody in here could read German, it's still a basic, indisputable fact, that decisions and policies made on the German Wikipedia are compeltely and utterly irrelevant here. Not to mention that assessing whether someone or something is 'deletionist', let alone how much of a deletionist, is completely subjective. We might aswell be arguing about whether Pippa is pretty enough to have an article on English Wikipedia. It's timewasting nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being someone's sister is not notable - all the "coverage" is about the wedding. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is even has a FB page devoted to appreciation of her butt. Does that have anything to do with her sister ? --Penbat (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting young lady and I for one appreciated this well-done tasteful article. The delete argument is dangerous to any concept of an attractive Wikipedia since it is based on a subjective and rigid personal standard which is NOT universal. And while on the subject the word "notable" should not be part of this discussion since it is entirely a personal opinion (not mine by-the-way). If Wikipedia is to remain the "good thing" that it is then this sort of rigid (and some would say a tad arrogant), thinking must be resisted. OldProvit (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)— OldProvit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes, she is gorgeous and an article on her sex life would even get ten times as many clicks than the current 600,000 but she still is not notable in her own right. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone post her telephone number again? So that the article includes at least one worthwhile piece of information. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only the sister f someone actually notably. Pretty much all the info is also about kate 87.114.190.81 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is Mary Todd Notable for anything other than being Abraham Lincoln's wife? You could say she was first lady, but by the logic of the first presenter, everything having to do with being first lady is related to being the wife of Abraham Lincoln. An extream example to be sure, one should be careful about having too stringent standards of who is notable. During the ceremony I was curious about who this Pippa Middleton was, and I found the wikipedia article informative. It would be a shame if this site were to error on the side of censorship rather than the free flow of information on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther502002 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable and so it is our editing policy to keep the sourced information. The reasons why the topic is notable are mostly irrelevant but sources such as the Daily Telegraph indicate that she has significant status as "the most eligible woman in the world". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I didn't like the reasons she was considered notable, I stated she was not notable and why, per policy. Unless you have some sources which contradict me, you've done nothing to answer the nomination. The one you've provided here is about her role in the wedding, so clearly, it doesn't do that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide a source which contradicts you. And your reasons for denying notability seem to be mostly a prejudice against the Daily Mail. This won't do because the essence of notability is to limit ourselves to topics which have been noticed. Your position that this person has not been noticed is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When looking at the actual source, you really haven't. You can speculate all you want about what my prejudices are, you can even believe that the piece of artful deduction that is 'notable=been noticed' is far superior to having complicated discussions guided by the wording of WP:GNG or even WP:RS or WP:NOT, which is apparently an absurd activity, but at the end of the day, List of most eligible women in the world is not an impending topic on this encyclopoedia. As ever, your arguments lead us up complete blind alleys, and do nothing to address the deletion rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I will assume good faith for this nomination. Even though I find it hard to see anything indicating non-notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first presenter is inaccurate in his interpretation of the rules regarding people being independently notable. It is designed to keep out entries where the information on the person is and will always be limited to their relationship to another individual - i.e., the spouse of a US cabinet secretary that is not independently newsworthy. This is certainly not true of Pippa who was is basically the closest commoner to British Royalty and will never be able to maintain anonymity going forward. Even if this was not true she is a critically important to the story of a major event and without being able to research Pippa the entire story of the Price William and Princess Catherine could never be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknow (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A more extreme example than the Mary Todd case above is the Wikipedia rule that children of US presidents are automatically notable. Being related to somebody can get you into Wikipedia. I agree with OldProvit, though, that conducting the debate in terms of notability isn't helpful; I don't think we will convince MickMacNee, for example. It may seem unfair or arbitrary that Miss Middleton should get all this attention, and I'm sure that there are prettier, more engaging, and more intelligent women out there who deserve it. But then then same could be said of the children of actors, or singers, who would never have been noticed if it were not for their parentage. Being sister-in-law to the second in line to the throne, who stands a very strong chance of inheriting, will make it difficult for her to slip into obscurity now. --AJHingston (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should ignore the notability argument why exactly? Everywhere it is discussed on Wikipedia in terms of the actual proof against policy, rather than simply making the claim that x is notable and standing back in disbelief when others disagree, it works pretty well. The existence of other pretty women is neither here nor there, the woes of child stars is neither here nor there, the existence of dubious (perhaps non-existent?) rules about the automatic notability of US president's children is also similarly irrelevant. Infact, any argument made in here that doesn't directly address the question - where's the actual proof that this article's sources support the claim that this person is independently notable, per non-tabloid standards, and according to our relevant objective standard, is irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S., to Nicknow, deleting this article would not mean people would not be able to research the critical role she played in the event - as is normal, that would still be found in the article about the event. To sustain a credible biography here, unless it was to shoot the President, you need more of a critical role in the world than Pippa has had thus far. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable, and generating massive media attention following the marriage of her sister to Prince William. It's likely that she'll remain in the public eye, and will participate in charity and numerous other events in the future. Matt2224 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this nomination is ridiculous. She's now notable on her own rights. She has generated considerable media coverage about herself, not just about her status as being Catherine's sister. @pple complain 19:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got any examples? This is a big claim, so it should be easy to prove. And please remember, per the rationale, I am looking for significant in detail coverage about Pippa as an independent person, that is not about Kate, or the wedding, or the family, or from a tabloid; or if that's not possible, I'm looking for a cogent, fact based argument as to how my breakdown of policy governing notability for biographies and sources, is somehow incorrect. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A clear case of notable by association at best. 68.145.99.124 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to an article on the family. Notability is not inherited from a sister, and news coverage from being a maid of honor runs afoul of WP:BLP1E, however massive it was in one news cycle. See also WP:NOTNEWS. lease do not clutter this AFD with reports of what German Wikipedia did in an AFD, or with Google hits, or page view counts on the day a billion people watched a Royal Wedding. A mention in an article on Kate's family is more encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : Pippa Middleton is the Lady in Waiting to the Duchess of Cambridge who will one day be the Queen of England. Actually I think her whole family should have their own page, she is royalty by association, she IS royalty and will be forever. Not to mention everyone loves Pippa! (Rharrington 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) (talk)
  • Keep, despite the delirious fandom of the preceding comment. Historical figures are often notable solely through their relatives or associations. Pippa Middleton is and will be notable historically from the perspective of prosopography. If she isn't notable, there are hundreds if not thousands of WP articles on such figures as aristocrats and courtesans that ought to be deleted. Independence of notability is an illusion. We have an article on Julius Caesar's aunt, whose notability depends entirely on her famous nephew and famous husband; virtually nothing else is known of her. The number of page hits is not meaningless; it means half a million people looked up Pippa Middleton on Wikipedia, precisely because they were counting on WP to give them reliable facts rather than celebrity twaddle. I often look up celebrities on WP to check birth dates or where they were born and verifiable biographical data. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of this article is sourced to tabloids, whose stock in trade is as you put it, 'celebrity twaddle'. I urge anybody reading this article to check what the exact source of any information they take from it actually is, lest they be conned into believing that just because it's on Wikipedia, it's reliable, let alone an indication the person is notable. Even the birth date. As regards to Julius Ceasar's aunt, that article has sources from MIT and other scholarly institutions. While the idea that in 2,000 years time the likes of MIT will be trying to verify the existence of Pippa Middleton is amusing, it's not exactly relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Notability is not dependent on the quality of the sources currently used. If the sources aren't good, good sources should be provided. Notability can, however, be indicated by the number and variety of sources, including popular media, that have taken an interest in the subject. This is a separate issue from verifiability and WP:RS. Countless WP articles have been started using unscholarly websites as sources, but that doesn't mean the page should be deleted or that the topic wasn't notable. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that reliable sources cannot be provided to show any coverage of Pippa as a person beyond what's included as left-overs in articles about the wedding or the family, is the whole entire point. And no, the GNG requires reliable sources period, it does not allow use of 'popular sources' (whatever they may be?) to stand in as showing notability, until better ones come along. MickMacNee (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular media" would include news outlets such as wire services and major newspapers. These are legitimate sources to be used with caution for compiling articles that have an element of breaking news. Tabloids, fansites, and pseudo-news sources are going to be infinitely more plentiful than sources we might consider reliable for a celebrity or entertainer. Researching any BLP that deals with a celeb/entertainer will get you truckloads of crap and a few RS. The fact that the vast majority of search engine hits are crap sources doesn't mean a subject isn't notable; you don't use those as sources in the article, but their sheer volume does indicate notability. If all that stuff's out there, but thousands of people are coming to WP, it means they're looking for an encyclopedic article on this person that contains biographical data they can rely on. There's no substitute for good editing, and gossip and sighing need to be kept out. But if "fashion icon" is one of P.M.'s notable points, then a (hypothetical) quote from Vera Wang published in Vogue would be authoritative within the subject area of fashion. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't sound much different to a Google Hits argument. Is she a fashion icon? Do people actualy have reliable sources giving significant in depth coverage of her in her role as such? Or is the reality that these fashion icon and other such quotes are just that - cherry picked tiny parts of articles from pieces which are infact in their substance about other topics - the wedding, her role in it, etc, etc. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Let us all remember that we are an encyclopedia, and the role of an encyclopedia is to provide useful information to its readers who come looking for it. This article does that. Truthanado (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's role is not to serve up what readers simply want or find useful - that simplistic definition would include a multitude of things which Wikipedia is most definitely not. Rather than a simple reminder, this is infact a complete and utter misundertsanding of our basic mission frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think by now she has enough independent coverage to warrant her own article. But please drop the ahnentafel; this isn't genealogy.com, and her ancestors aren't of any particular notability. Lampman (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is totally absurd to suggest that the sister of the future queen is not worthy of an article. Hatred of the Daily Mail on the part of some people is not justification for deletion of the article. It may well need improving. To suggest that it should be deleted makes Wikipedia a joke. 94.173.180.22 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While notability is not inherited, someone who has played a prominent part in a national event, and who is regarded by society commentators as the most eligible single woman in the country, is clearly notable for more than just being the sister of the Duchess of Cambridge. (Bear in mind that I don't necessarily think her eligibility is factual, or interesting, but it's widely reported, and our article should reflect that.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has indeed "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the number of visits of the English page but also of other languages since yesterday, is further proof of her notability. That her "career is not notable" is not a valid argument in that context, as a lot of this coverage is specifically about her, not "by association". --Azurfrog (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has major news coverage in the media and is more notable in my mind than her only brother personally. Kate and Pippa are quite close. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Still no proof of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.5.238 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The closer should note that at some point the article was slapped with the {Rescue} tag by Colonel Warden, so this is as good a time as any to remind people commenting here that simplistic proof by assertion, or copying and pasting the wording of the GNG is not how you properly argue keep in an Afd. And if anybody needs help, from either side, you should read this and this. If people want to claim sources show x, y, or z, you are actually expected to give at least a sample of the sources to which you refer. People aren't mind readers, they cannot simply guess what type of source you think is reliable, or what you think is evidence of significant in depth coverage of a topic independent of other topics. And it would also help if people restricted themselves to countering arguments that were actually made in the nomination - to take just one of the latest for example, I never even mentioned the word 'career', so I can hardly have my rationale invalidated by what followed on that basis. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator: the first AfD was shot down; there's many times more coverage of Pippa Middleton now than there was then, and this nomination is absurd. The forwarded argument for deletion is that she is not herself notable because her sister is actually the notable one. But the fallacy in that argument is easy to see: in the same way, her sister must not be notable either because she has merely inherited notability from her more famous husband. And he in turn has merely inherited his notability from his more famous father, who in turn ... and so on. It is true you do not attain notability merely by virtue of being connected to someone notable, but that does not prevent you from attaining notability of your own, even if that connection is what kick started it. The media is now full of articles about Pippa Middleton and she is now notable in her own right. In the last AfD I quoted the Daily Mail; the nominator has conventiently tried to exclude that report. Try instead this report from CBS that she is now considered "England's most notable bachelorette" instead. Or one of the other thousands of reports worldwide about her, if you would prefer. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've no need to explain the concept - if you read my deletion rationale and subesequent replies, you'll see I do understand it fully. I'm asking for proof of these many claims that there's 'thousands' of reports out there that do not meet the definitions above. You've given here a report from CBS, which again, has a cherry picked quote which sounds very good, but which when examined for actual content, context, and in this case even length, it's pretty unbelievable to be describing it as in depth singificant coverage of Pippa as a topic, from which a biography could remotely be built and relied upon. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course I read your deletion rationale - that's why I was explaining the fallacy of your argument and why it was a nonsense. Here's another reference for you: The Daily Telegraph (not a tabloid): a 6400 word article about Pippa Middleton which includes "but Pippa is no clinger to coattails, her society trajectory has been dazzling of its own accord". Read it an you'll even find some biographical information you so crave. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the article which is unsurprisingly mostly about the wedding and her role in it, I found out from one tiny part, where she went to school, who her flatmates were, and who she's dating. a.k.a. tabloid fodder. Somebody elsewhere compare this sort of coverage to that of a US President. Really? MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She played an important role in a major historical event, and is and will remain notable.--Dmol (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As the sister of the Duchess of Cambridge, it is hardly acceptable to delete her individual article. Her notability is undeniable at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.92.56 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. WP:GNG doesn't actually demand that a subject be "independently notable in their own right". It talks about independent meaning sources that are not produced by those affiliated with the subject - a completely different topic. There's no reason to demand that a subject be notable independent of her role as chief bridesmaid of a wedding watched by millions of people across the globe, any more than we'd need to prove Barack Obama is notable independent of his role as President of the United States. The question is whether she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for whatever reason. It makes no difference if she got the coverage for wearing a pretty dress at her sister's wedding. Here's just one article from a broadsheet newspaper about how nice Pippa looked in her dress: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8484342/Royal-wedding-Pippa-Middleton-shines-as-maid-of-honour.html Hobson (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an article that's already been raised above. It's about her role in the wedding, nothing more. It does nothing to support a whole biography. And yes, I'm afraid the nature and significance of the source of the coverage does matter - nobody here surely believes that we would even need to use these types of patchy and limited sources to write a biography for a US President? There have been whole books written about entire chapters in his life. That's precisely because he is notable as the President - that's simply not a fact you can just dismiss as irrelevant. Is the same true for Pippa? No. She doesn't have the coverage precisely because her notability is nothing like that of a US President. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The nature and significance of the source of the coverage does matter, but if you actually looked at those sources you would see they include a massive number of reports and articles in non-tabloid newspapers which all Wikipedia editors would usually consider reliable sources. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about subjects who don't have books written about them, but very few have the level of comprehensive coverage in other media as Pippa Middleton. Your assertion that sources are "patchy and limited" is simply wrong, as anybody who investigates would see in moments.Hobson (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the sources. And to labour the point - I have never denied that she gets some coverage in reliable sources. The issue is whether that coverage represents significant in depth treatment of her as an independently notable person, or whether it comprises bits and pieces placed in articles which are in their whole, about all the things that are unsurprisingly getting full coverage - the wedding, her sister, etc etc. And yes, while it's no surprise for anyone to learn that you don't need to have books written about you before you are deemed notable on Wikipedia, it's also no surprise to learn that the people who get 'massive' coverage, normally have no problem pointing to 'thousands' of news articles which are all about them, in their entirety, as independently notable subjects. Star Wars Kid springs to mind. And even he is considered non-notable by many people. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely "some" is a bit of an understatement? You have also failed to explain why she would need to be notable independently of her involvement in the wedding to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. You pointed in your original post to a guideline which includes the word "independent", but the word as used in that guideline has a very different meaning to the one you are attempting to ascribe to it. It refers to sources that are published independently of the subject, not to the subject somehow doing something notable that doesn't involve anyone else. Many people are notable because of roles they have played or positions they have held. As you state, Barack Obama is notable as president. Snookie is notable as a person on a TV show. Pippa Middleton is notable for the significant role she played in a major historical event which generated a large amount of media coverage focused on her. The fact that it was her sister's wedding doesn't reduce her own notability.Hobson (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Mark Borkowski states that Pippa Middleton is a 'significant public figure in her own right' (sky News 23:17 hours 30/4/11). Notable in her own right, I counted over one hundred articles in major newspapers and magazines in ONE day not connected to the wedding of her sister Katherine Middleton with coverage going back to 2006, along with untold online media platforms. Pippa Middleton is also considered a fashion icon and garners endless paragraphs in her own right, Pippa Middleton won the Tatler 2008 award as most eligible beating super models, aristocrats and celebrities . My feelings are that it is the usual haters hating.Twobells (talk)
    If you look in the deletion rationale, I never said there wasn't coverage outside the wedding period. If you say it's major, then let's have an example. It's not a question of 'hate', it's a question of wondering how people can leap from the small factoids above which are part and parcel of the tabloid world's raison d'etre, and come up with a claim of notability that supports a whole biography in an encyclopoedia, without violating the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, or a socialite gossip page, or an extension of Tatler. The claim is that she's a significant public figure in her own right, yet with these little titbits here, you've pretty much replicated a large part of the 'Life' section of her article - one of the 3 paragraphs infact between school, and the wedding! - that's how little substantial coverage there actually is, of this 27 year old woman, who has surely done more with her life than the contents of those 3 paragraphs suggest, if the claims are correct. And Mark Borkowski is a PR agent - it's his job to make people appear more notable than they are. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSince this is all becoming a bit heated, I think it would be helpful to explain to MickMacNee that I, and others, are not trying to avoid the issue here. I understand that he does not think that the reasons why she is generating so much interest at the moment justifies an article (which is what notability is about). We cannot prove him wrong, because these are matters of judgement. Where there are clear rules they lead to results that often seem unsatisfactory to some of us - the one about the children of US presidents was used recently to justify retaining an article about a child of a 19th century president who did not reach adulthood. Just occasionally there are deletion proposals which if carried out run the real risk of discrediting Wikipedia in the general mind and this is one. NPOV applies here as well, and proposals to delete the wedding, the dress, and the Duchess of Cambridge's sister will be interpreted as driving a particular agenda whether intended or not. --AJHingston (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV is irrelevant. And no, it's not all subjective. The terms 'reliable', 'tabloid', 'significant', 'in depth', 'topic' and 'separate', do all have relatively widely understood definitions on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seriously, at least three newspapers I've read have reported about her involvement as Kate's bridesmaid (and beyond). Any other person mentioned by 3 newspapers will have their articles on Wikipedia kept.See expanded rationale below. I don't see how the nominator's WP:NOT rationale apply to this. --Deryck C. 22:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you actually being serious though? You think being mentioned in 3 newspapers, irregardless of their reliability, or even what the content might be, is evidence of automatic notability? Why don't you search for the news coverage someone like Gillian Duffy got in 2010, and continues to get this year. Do you want to try and create the Wikipedia biography for her on this basis? Because having been there and done that, I can tell you you're going to get a massive shock walking into that situation with these beliefs. Funnily enough, she is considered utterly non-notable in terms of creating a biography, because none of the coverage stems from being notable in her own right. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am serious. Indeed using the same rationale, I would vote to keep an article on Gillian Duffy if someone created an article on her in an encyclopedic way and the article was nominated for deletion. I realise I didn't make my point clearly first time round: that Pippa Middleton is mainly known by a cause celebre doesn't mean she can't also be notable in her own right. I did consider the reliability of the newspapers when making my point, however I suspect we differ on the weighting between readership and public perception in terms of gauging the overall reliability of a source. In addition I should state which 3 newspapers I was referring to: Guardian, Telegraph and Daily Mail. I understand many Wikipedians have a problem with Daily Mail, however I suspect if we have to contrive a reliability criterion such that Guardian and Telegraph are both regarded as unreliable, we can pretty much disregard all newspapers around the world. In addition, significant coverage has also been made by many foreign newspapers; ones I've seen include Süddeutsche and Das Bild in Germany, and Apple and Mingpao in Hong Kong. In fact, pretty much every newspaper I follow has mentioned her. I understand that she wouldn't get as much coverage had she not been Kate's sister, however that most of the newspaper coverages have gone beyond reporting the wedding and did a separate biography of her meant that Pippa is now notable in her own right. --Deryck C. 14:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to repeat myself for the billionth time, I never said people mainly known for one thing can't be notable in their own right - what matters is what coverage you bring to the table as evidence that they are notable in their own right. If you have any links for any of this coverage, the Daily Mail excepted, please by all means provide it. Simple assertions that it exists are pretty pointless - plenty of people in here have brought all sorts of links to the table, but the simple fact is they don't turn out to contain what they are claimed to contain, i.e., they are not evidence of in depth significant coverage of Pippa as an independently notable person in her own right (people can't even decide what this independent claim is - is she a socialite, a style icon, a part planner, or what? - if the actual coverage existed, answering this question wouldn't be so hard). In the spirit of the Wikipedia maxim - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then by contrast - simple claims can be proved easily. So, where is the easy proof? Why are people resorting to using single cherry picked quotes from pieces which are about the wedding or the family etc etc, to prove a notability that should be simply self evident from the breadth and depth of that coverage. In short, I had hoped this Afd debate would go beyond any simplistic ideas as to whether she's got newspaper coverage or not. Maybe that was a mistake. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go, one from the Telegraph and another from the Guardian. Are the reports related to Pippa Middleton's cause celebre? Yes, it's impossible to discuss her without putting the royal wedding in context. But is Pippa Middleton discussed in adequate depth such that she's now notable on her own? Yes, I think so. The Guardian article showed how notable the "Harry and Pippa" gossip has already become, and that the Telegraph article dedicated half of its report on Pippa Middleton's life before the royal wedding suggests that Pippa is now notable in her own right. --Deryck C. 16:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realise that I just cited an article which MickMacNee has already attempted to dismiss as an unreliable source because it's "tabloid fodder", in which case I need to respond to that instead. I hope you can explain what's meant by "tabloid fodder", and how that implies a source is unreliable. I would like to point out that "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" refers to the way Wikipedia articles are written, not Wikipedia's sourcing policy. There are also two additional points that I would like to make:
    1. This discussion seems to revolve around the challengeable assumption that the Daily Mail is not an acceptable reliable source for Wikipedia. I would like to see a previous discussion on Wikipedia in which the Daily Mail was decided not to be a reliable source for biographical information, and which resulted in BLP content citing the Daily Mail being removed from Wikipedia.
    2. WP:BLP1E states that If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented... a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. Please explain how the coverage on Pippa Middleton with regards to the royal wedding isn't "persistent in reliable sources" in addition to discrediting her notability independent of the royal wedding. --Deryck C. 16:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Search the RS or BLP noticeboard archives as regards the perceived reliability of the Daily Mail. There's even a direct quote from Jimbo somewhere questioning it's use anywhere on Wikipedia. And rightly so, if you read the BLP policy, and understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, not a tabloid (which refers to WP:NOT, not the 'way you write an article'). And frankly, arguing that being the maid of honour at that wedding passes BLP1E, well, all I'll say to that is the given example of someone who would be notable for one event is the guy who tried to shoot Ronald Reagan. And on the issue of persistance, it's been 1 day. If people are still writing about her performance in a year's time, then it's persistance. All of this is standard Wikipedia stuff. The Guardian source is as ever, about the wedding, and as ever, it is as thin and tangential as everything else that has been offered as regards showing that Pippa is worthy of a biography in an encyclopoedia. Significant coverage, it is not. In depth, it is not. Infact, as a simple collection of people's personal views of the wedding, how on earth it is even being held up as evidence of anything but those people's personal views? It's frankly beyond my comprehension that people are struggling with this idea of tabloid versus encyclopoedic values, when the only thing this Guardian source would be used for in this biography, is to pass on the piece of utter trivia that is 'writer Julie Myerson and her kids agree that Pippa should marry Harry next'. That is what people think is what goes into encyclopoedic biographies? Seriously? MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability Pippa Middleton has undoubtedly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "Significant coverage" means addressing the subject directly in detail, "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "Pippa Middleton" (with quotation marks) today gives over a million google hits, and more than a million page visits to our article during April seems to me to leave this nomination looking pretty foolish. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exaclty the type of vote I was referring to above with the note. It's almost two completely unrelated non-points, seamlessly merged together, minus the further words that would justify either of them being made. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Prior to the wedding one could have made the argument that Pippa Middleton was not famous in her own right. Now that she's played a major role in an event witnessed by two billion people and been referenced in thousands of non-tabloid articles about said event, the "delete tag" prefacing the article makes Wikipedia seem silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is ridiculous that we are even having this discussion. At one time you could argue that she wasn't independently notable, but if anyone honestly thinks that is still the case, they obviously haven't been watching the news. The fact that the delete tag is even on the Wikipedia page is embarrassing to the site. Bds69 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's ridiculous is that a) people write 'strong' keep when it has no meaning whatsoever - it's the cluefulness of your argument that gives it 'strength', which that brings me to b) the idea that 'omfg just look at the news' remotely addresses the deletion rationale. As shocking as it may be to hear, I didn't nominate this article on the basis that she's not been in the news. MickMacNee (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Absolutely notable. 1 Portillo (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Nobody here, not least me, is the least bit shocked to hear the news that searching Google for Pippa Middleton produces results. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moonraker2. There is an assertion of notability for this subject. --ddima.talk 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An assertion is just that, an assertion. What turns it into fact is some actual evidence and reasoning. MickMacNee (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject is not notable in her own right. Parts of the article read as if they are composed by the SEO people the family business has hired. If this is a keeper then the article should be re-written to remove all that sort of stuff. Silent Billy (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep beacuse while it's arguable that it doesn't conform to some of WP's guidelines, it feels like the right thing to do. danno 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is now notable on her own rights, and generating massive media attention following the marriage of her sister to Prince William. It's likely that she'll remain in the public eye, and will participate in charity and other events in the future. She has generated considerable media coverage about herself. One day she will be the Queen's sister (and earlier the godmother of the successor to the throne ;-) -- LeoDavid (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is her own person who is notable for her media attention surrounding her personal involvement in her sister's wedding to Prince William. The public will continue to be interested in her for several years to come, and she will continue to be in the public eye because of how close she is to her sister, who is married to the future King on England, which means that in future years Pippa will be the sister of the Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.170.28 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear case of notable by association at best. --Kaaveh (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Firstly I agree that the article is not up to standard. Secondly her sister being Kate is a debatable justification for notability. Despite this, as indirectly stated above, the fact remains that she played a central role (Maid of Honour) at an event (Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton) that was estimated to have been watched on TV by 2 billion people[1], not to mention those watching or participating via various internet media. This alone makes her independently notable in her own right. The fact that she gained the position of maid of honour (And the associated notability) because it was her sister's wedding is irrelevant. --Reallynca (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With these latest keep votes, it kinda makes you feel sorry for James tbh. He gets loads of Google hits and tabloid type coverage of his life, he's in the family business, he's the future brother of the Queen, he played an important role in the wedding, and in terms of quality, reliable & in depth wedding/business/kate related coverage he seems to get just as much as has been offered up here supporting Pippa as independently notable (well, in the few places anyone has bothered to offer any actual links at all to support their basic assertions on the matter), yet no bio for James. It seems to me the only things missing from what's been covered in this actual Afd are that he hasn't been hailed as the world's most eligible batchelor, and hasn't won a Tatler award. But somehow I don't think these are supposed to be the central planks on which Pippa's biography as a notable person in her own right, is intended to be resting upon. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing material has changed in the 60 days since the prior AFD. The nominator makes a strong case that she shouldn't be notable. The world has elected to disagree, so that's what we go with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED, and no evidence that Pippa Middleton has notability independent of her relationship to her sister. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly seems to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can you imagine users visiting Wikipedia and NOT finding a page on Pippa? The newspapers, both the heavies and the tabloids, have covered her extensively these last few days, and an image of her, independent from her sister, is emerging. The Delete request in my view is overzealousness on the part of the requestor, and even if it did contravene a rule or two could be overlooked on this occasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.215.243 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — 81.178.215.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - someone who appears on the front page of national newspapers and who seems destined for further coverage is notable in both the common sense meaning and in terms of our "General notability guidelines". I am no great fan of our fascination with "popular culture", but this nomination seems like an argument for argument's sake. Ben MacDui 09:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is notable in her own right. And more so, it must be encyclopedic that she captured all the attention during her sister's wedding. If a footballer who plays just 2 matches on a national league deserves an article on Wikipedia, why a Princess sister could not have one?? (Gabinho>:) 09:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Much as it pains me, as an ardent UK republican, to say this, but she is clearly notable. Ok, it is based on the fact that she is someone's sister and took part in the most-watched televised event of all time, but on Wikipedia we have screeds of pages dedicated to minor British nobility who are there solely on account of the accident of their birth into a particular family and their relations rather than notablity through achievement etc. So if we can have them in Wikipedia, we can have Pippa. (To be pefectly honest, I'd rather get rid of the lot of them, all the junky articles about minor nobs as well as Pippa, but I know it hasn't got a WP:SNOWBALL's chance ...)Wiltshireway (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a tendency in this debate to present it as though there is some firm rule in Wikipedia against inclusion of people and things of interest because of their association with somebody or something else. That isn't so. Leaving nobility out of it, children of US presidents qualify automatically even if they have done nothing in their lives other than be born, and that is because Wikipedians have decided that there is always enough interest in them to justify an article. And there are numerous other examples of people who would be totally unknown if it were not for their relationship with somebody else. That is not to say the the WP:NOTINHERITED guideline isn't useful and I have often invoked it myself, but it is no more than that. It is how the world works. I gather that the Duchess has a favourite hairdresser who did her hair for her big day. I've no idea who he is and if he has an article, but we can be quite sure that if not he will qualify for one because of that. MickMacNee has made a good case for an article on James Middleton as well, and I hope he will go ahead and create one. --AJHingston (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps a useful way of looking at this might be to ask - supposing the Maid of Honour at the royal wedding watched by millions of people was named Pippa Jones, no relation to the bride - and she had generated the same level of worldwide media coverage in numerous established and reliable publications as Pippa Middleton has - would a Wikipedia entry be appropriate? Being Catherine's sister may not in iteself make her notable, but nor does it prevent her being notable.Hobson (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is now notable in her own right, and satisfies WP:GNG Inks.LWC (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per previous AfD. She was maid of honour at "the biggest wedding of the decade", with independent coverage, that surely makes her notable. Zangar (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reputable and independent source for notability: Sunday Telegraph's Rowan Pelling writes: "The rise and rise of Pippa: (...) But Pippa is no clinger to coattails. Her society trajectory has been dazzling of its own accord. (...) On April 29, 2011 a Duchess was made, but a star was born." No further questions. --79.240.237.136 (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While her notability undoubtedly arose from her sister's, she's nonetheless received plenty of independent, non-trivial coverage, and will in all likelihood continue to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keep, though I'm surprised that her father and family patriarch, Michael Middleton, who is more notable, does not have an article. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was a beautiful bride's made at a royal wedding, that is notable to me, and the 1000's of others who searched her out and appreciate pages like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgfraser (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of articles about historic figures who are on wikipedia because they are family of royalty. Remember that she will be the only sister of the future queen of England, how can that not be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.226.20 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately Delete There are millions of party planners in the world. Unfortunately, double standards does not apply, and if this goes, we might aswell make an article for every sibling "married" into royalty all over the world. This article holds no significance. This article has no encyclopedic value. A brief mention of "Pippa" under the Catherine Duchess of Cambridge article is sufficient enough. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Millions of party planners known to billions of people and with for sure millions of admirers? Millions of party planners being maid of honor at a royal wedding? --Adornix (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2011 (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.
  1. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204443433487336.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pippa_Middleton_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138234514"