Talk:Pippa Middleton/Archive 1

"Evidence of notability" tag
This tag offers me the chance to remove it, which I shall, as the references already there seem to me to meet the WP:N standard. More will follow in the next few days. Also, the google search "Pippa Middleton" (with quotation marks) gives 12,300 results. Without quotes, there are 195,000 results, and sampling them they nearly all seem to go to this Pippa Middleton. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All appear to relate to a single event - it's not clear to me which of Notability_(people) she comes under? See Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B". Just because that's how the British monarchy works, doesn't mean it's how Wikipedia should work.
 * As for Google hits, see "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics".
 * Also see Notability_(people) - is her role that significant (tabloids fawning over her looks aside)? I'd suggest having this article as a redirect to Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton. The rest of her life story given here doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria (e.g., I picked one of the refs - it's clear they only mention her because of her sister marrying, not because of a notable part in the story itself; let's not perpetuate famous for being famous). Mdwh (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your are welcome to nominate the article for deletion but as Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination) was only closed as keep a few hours ago you may have to wait some time to nominate again. You are also welcome to ask for a redirect but you need to consider the weight of the keep decision. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just ridiculous
What is she? The other Boleyn girl? Well, no... not yet, anyway. I have seen far more meritorious people/events lacking their own entry - and she gets it? Based on WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.119.120 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, on Notability; and see also here. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest revisiting the deletion nomination. She is a complete and utter nobody and i dont see why she should have her own page while the only reason she has one is because she is related to Kate Middleton, period. Notability is a huge issue here - not everyone woh has made it to page six in some newspaper should get their own wikipedia entry. Just because a lot of people visited her page because she was mentioned in connection to her sister doesnt meet the notability criteria. There are other factors going into it. CarrieBee (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

75.252.178.145 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you would need to open a new cfd, CarrieBee. However, per 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 991,000 google hits, and I don't feel that more than a third of a million Wikipedia page visits during April helps the non-notable case. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@CarrieBee, she's not a complete and utter nobody; I mean, neither she nor her sister have really done anything notable. But she's a member of a family that apparently is notable enough to have their own article, so I guess she's as notable as any other member of the family. @Moonraker2, views to an unnotable Wikipedia page doesn't make the subject notable. If the page was put up, and the subject isn't notable, the views come after the fact. If the subject isn't notable it shouldn't be a page, whether it's popular or not. The family is notable, but she individually is not. It would be good if she had a section devoted to her on the family's page, but not a page devoted to only her.Greenhplover (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

New Image
I have a new image for this page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pippa-middleton-wedding.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradoh (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.173.180.22, 30 April 2011
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.


 * Thats not what the help request template is for, if you want to voice your opinon on the possible deletion of the article, go here-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied to AfD age. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the rescue tag. I came here to read more about her because I thought Wiki was all about being relevant to significant events/issues/people in real time. I wanted to know who she is...what she does...where she's from etc... like it or not she is notable because everyday people like me are interested. I thought Wiki was here to give factual information that people find interesting...not to decide who 'deserves' to receive your precious and precocious notice. I bet her page has had lots of hits since the wedding and I noticed there's quite a bit of talk about her in the social networks...it's because she was genuinely happy and it showed in her face that day. She provides an opportunity to see a different aspect of Kate...she is a person of interest in her own right because her open, happy and utterly natural disposition shown through the camera that day and now we want to know more about her. Nobody wants to wade through a bunch of high-brow crap over her 'worthiness' to be in your precious wiki...so bugger off and leave her page alone. My3652011 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescue tag
The Rescue tag is superfluous while another AfD is in place, and contradictory and confusing to readers, so I removed it. It's just been re-added, with no explanation in the edit summary. I contend that there is no purpose in keeping it and that it should be removed. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The tag in question is only used during AFD and so your objection seems to be a misunderstanding and so I shall reinstate it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahnentafel
Can someone please explain what that ahnentafel is doing in this article? Those things are for people with a notable ancestry, but as far as I can see, none of her ancestors are independently notable. Leaving it there turns Wikipedia into genealogy.com, which it's not supposed to be. I'm going to remove it, please explain here why there's a compelling reason it should stay. Lampman (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the chart of Pippa's ancestors is not needed in this article. If anyone wants to know who her ancestors were, they can see the chart in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Since they are sisters, they have the exact same ancestors as each other in every generation going back to the origin of life on Earth. The chart would be redundant here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the Middleton ancestry is now flowing into the royal family, I'm not convinced that it's non-notable and would prefer to keep it. It's no good relying on finding it at the Kate page, as there has been a similar tussle going on there, too, so that it comes and goes. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't need to be both here and at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and Kate is the one who is the member of the royal family now, so if it belongs on either page, it belongs on Kate's. If the supporters of having the ancestry chart on Kate's page lose that debate, they certainly aren't going to win the debate as to Pippa's page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete please
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) 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not hide/delete the original discussion and then answer in an tottaly new topic. In addition, keep new edits to the bottom of the page. These are all wikipedia policies. You are violating wikipedia guidelines and rules, especially using my I.P. to sign off your answer with. This in response to whoever has made the topic "Edit request from 94.173.180.22, 30 April 2011". The original discussion is the aforementioned "Delete Please", and keep any answers within the boundaries of this discussion thank you, and do please remember to sign off with your own I.P. or username. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This person is now associated with the Royal Family. It would be great of we lived in a world where fame depended on objective merit and not being married to a chinless wonder, but we do not live in such a world. Your problem is with the legions of the gormless who buy tabloid newspapers and Franklin Mint, not with Wikipedia, which merely records their inexplicable obsession. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to note that Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination) was only closed as keep a few hours ago with a conclusion to keep the article. It is probable best to wait some time before you nominate the article for deletion, although notability is not normally lost consensus can change but unlikely to do so in a few hours or weeks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is nothing particulary notable about Pippa Middleton other than her relationship to someone else who is notable. If this is the criteria for inclusion, then everyone would have their own Wikipedia page. Please, please delete to keep standards up. Strathallen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Well, the article got kept. The joke that is the Afd process on Wikipedia rolls on - as long as those debates do not resemble anything less nuanced than a count up of how many people have grasped the basic skill of simply writing - 'yep, I think she's notable because she has [cut and paste mode ON] "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" [/cut and paste mode OFF], then we really may aswell simply start counting Google hits to decide Afds and leave it that (and tbh, that's all that nearly half the keepers could even manage as an argument). It seems to matter not one bit whether the keep voters are able to explain in their own words what 'significant' or 'in depth' coverage actually is in this context, a biography, let alone whether can go beyond their pure argument by assertion and provide any links to back up what they claim it is, and then logically argue whether the links actually show it. In that regard, it's beyond amazing that Pippa's role in this wedding has been put on a par with people who shoot Presidents. It's beyond fantastic that 'coverage' which undeniably exists has been lumped in all together, completely ignoring the rather important concept in terms of notability that Pippa was only treated wholly in tabloids for tabloid reasons, and only partially and tangentially in more respected sources whose content and focus was for obvious reasons not about Pippa, meaning that this 'coverage' has been elevated to the same level as having your life being written about as a notable topic in its own right by serious respected sources, for encyclopoedic, not tabloid, reasons. And yes, I'm well aware that the whole source doesn't have to cover the whole topic - but the bar is set at chapters among books, not one or two lines in a paragraph, or one or two paragraphs in a full length story. One person even alleged I 'hated' Pippa. Well, no, not really, I was if anything trying to protect her from Wikipedia by ensuring what notable details of her life exist as covered by reliable sources were kept in the places where they were most relevant. It's called having a proper perspective and giving proper weight. Most experienced editors here know the damage that can be done by it when it keeps full biographies on people for which the actual encyclopoedic coverage does not really exist to write a full and well rounded biography using reliable sources alone (as WP:BLP demands), and tbh, when the likes of the Daily Mail is still the primary source of much of its content, after all the 'improvement' solicited by the 'rescue' tag, and given the fact that the talk page has, during this entire Afd process, only garnered one debate on the actual content - about whether to document the appreciation for her ass or not, well, all I can say is, I apologise to you Pippa, as I'm sure not many of the ardent keepers are going to be interested in maintaining this article's quality, making sure it tries at least to be a credible biography and not a simply an aggregator of tabloid coverage of your life, with all its intrinsic and non-encyclopoedic flaws, for the rest of eternity. Afd:Making Wikipedia suck since fovever. MickMacNee (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Today, the deletion discussion of yesterday (German Wikipedia) and a few days ago (on 30 April -English Wikipedia) is headline in German press: "Augsburger Allgemeine" on 3 May 2011: . The journalists scoff at the deletion discussion, because it's so obviously, that there's comprehensive media coverage about Pippa Middleton whereby the discussion seems so silly. (In the meantime, the result in both cases was keep) -- LeoDavid (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the only user who took part in both of those discussions – that is, the one here and the one on the German Wikipedia – I can note that our German-speaking colleagues went for a speedy keep. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading
I have removed her from the people from Reading category. Being born in a Reading hospital does not make her a Readinger. She has never lived in or been educated in Reading. Farrtj (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Headline: Wikipedia-Discussion about Pippa Middleton
Today, the deletion discussion of yesterday (German Wikipedia) and a few days ago (on 30 April -English Wikipedia) is headline in German press: "Augsburger Allgemeine" on 3 May 2011:. XD (The result was in both cases keep) -But what about her and Catherine's brother, James Middleton? -- LeoDavid (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the only user who took part in both of those discussions – that is, the one here and the one on the German Wikipedia – I can note that our German-speaking colleagues went for a speedy keep. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lelegirli, 30 April 2011
the word organize is misspelled.

Lelegirli (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No its not, in British English, organise is spelt with an s-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some popular forms of British English do use an -s- instead of a -z- in "organize", but more traditional British English (including Oxford English) uses a -z-. I am old-fashioned English and always use a -z- for "organize", "realize", "antagonize", etc. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lelegirli, you started your sentence with a lower case letter, which is incorrect. You also spelt mispelt as "misspelled" which is the American spelling, so I assume you are from the USA and probably unaware that anything else exists beyond that country. But just to let you know that there are differences between American and British spellings, and both are acceptable on Wikipedia. See here: WP:AmE. Childrens do learn. 82.152.209.221 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia was originally an American initiative, U.S. English is preferred, but there is an exception for specifically British topics.95.49.244.248 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You might as well argue that as the US was originally a UK initiative, UK spelling is to be preferred. Ericoides (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

redirect to the family article

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content has been merged to a family article and s I redirected this to where it belongs - please look at the long term picture, shes a one event and suits much better in a family article. Content is now pretty much duplicated at Middleton family - Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This article recently (and relatively easily) survived a second Articles_for_deletion/Pippa_Middleton_(2nd_nomination) afd nom. The result of the nom was "snowball keep," not "merge." Unless a consensus develops to merge and redirect, it should remain as is. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * what was the point of having the discussion if admins are just going to do what they want regardless.Nirame (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the point of having a BLP policy that cannot be overridden by consensus, if mobs of clueless editors then do it anyway? Hans Adler 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely relevant Jamie. At the time of the Afd, the only plausible merge target was the wedding article, the Middleton family article didn't even exist. Had it not been snowed we might have even seen a swing in opinion to merge, who knows. It's not going to be defensible if we end up in a situation where Wikipedia considers Pippa notable but James or Carole not, outside of their family - the same weak arguments and evidence has been offered for all of them as being notable enough for standalone biographies. And even now, this article looks nothing like a credible biography, not in terms of balance or general coverage, and that's not an accident - it's down to the complete lack of significant or in depth coverage of her in reliable non-tabloid sources, as an independently notable person. This sort of non-biography is what you end up with when people argue at Afd that quotes or paragraphs in pieces largely about other topics, or coverage by the tabloids at all, is GNG level encyclopoedic coverage of the topic. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree that the article needs to be merged. Early life – [wholly unremarkable] career – attendance at a wedding: this does not make a biography. When we don't have the material for a reasonable biography of a living person, basic respect (and for those who don't have it, WP:BLP) requires that we don't dress up the little stuff we have as a biography. For all practical purposes this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Hans Adler 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * support merge and redirect to the family article - in the long term this is clearly the best option. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. If the coverage that people claimed existed in the Afd really did exist, then this would already look like a biography. Right now, it does not. Now we have a Middleton family article, it can easily merged to prevent unnecessary duplication until such time as the assertions actually come true - nothing is erased from the history by a merge after all, so people cannot argue we would be losing any information. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can't just walk in and unilaterally overturn a snowball consensus from a recent AfD. I'll take it to ANI if anyone attempts to do so. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And what would they do? send you back here > "content dispute". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Circumventing a recent strong consensus is not a content dispute. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change as the circumstances change; see above - there was no merge target until recently. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not unilaterally overturning anything. It wasn't me who redirected this article. I'm making the same argument I did in the Afd, and hopefully it's going to be listened to a little more closely and cluefully now we're outside the venue that is Afd, which is notorious for bringing all heat and no light to the real issues - such as what actually underpins your idea that Pippa's "considerable media attention" is able to translate into a credible biography. Although now the Middleton family article is up at Afd, we appear to be headed straight back into the oven. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge only reasonable solution. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote yourself further down: "Praytell, why?" RichardOSmith (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me praytell again: There are not enough sources that do not either a) report on trivia which have been deemed "unincludable" or b) regurgitate some trivia by republishing what someone else has already written. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. There's already been two AFDs which supported keeping a separate article.--Dmol (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge Though the parents and brother don't seem to merit individual articles, Pippa has garnered considerable media attention. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support not known for anything besides being her sister's sister (WP:INHERIT). As an aside, her parents could be notable on their own as successful businessmen. Hot Stop (c) 20:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Not independently notable, agree that this is the best long-term option. Jenks24 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. She's notable in her own right. Merge would be nonsense, as seen in here: "Augsburger Allgemeine". Merge would blunder Wikipedia. This discussion blunders Wikipedia! Maybe, also a Middleton family, where the ancestry is noted, like Baron Middleton, would be ok. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "What will the world think?" is not an argument. I'm sure there are millions of people pissed off at one or the other article here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Admirable attitude, Choyoołʼįįhí His jokes are lost on me. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Saying "she is notable" over and over again is like saying "pigs can fly" &mdash; just because you say it doesn't make it so. What exactly is she notable for, and what are the reliable sources outside the same tabloid trash that talk about her [unmentionable parts of anatomy lest one gets blocked]? Does carrying haggis into a pub make one notable? I want my own article. Is it shooting a certain number of game birds on a given day? There are thousands of rednecks in the U.S. that get a better score. Is it wearing a nice dress? Put a note into the designer's article, that's the one who deserves credit for it. Is it being present at the wedding? We need to write about the kid who held her ears shut on the balcony. Praytell, what is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What happens on German Wikipedia is irrelevant. This is English Wikipedia - we can only judge the coverage in the English media, we do not have a clue or a care what the German Wikipedia policies are on notability, and we do not have the Pending Changes protection they have with which for better or worse, they can better protect articles like this from BLP violations and the flood of general crap that people try to add, given the overall tabloid nature of the coverage. MickMacNee (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You misread the article: the journalist also wrote about the discussion in English Wikipedia. Oh boy! -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with german WP but with media coverage in Germany (and world wide as far as I see it). Pippa ist much more prominent here than any other member of the family. --Adornix (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge - I think that surviving two AfD nominations speaks to the consensus of Wiki editors that the subject is notable enough for an article in her own right. Furthermore, this article is plenty well sourced and meets WP:N and I see no reason to move it other than some editors simply don't like it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. per dmol. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose merge. AfD result seems pretty clear to me. Besides: it is very likely PIppa who will have by far the most extensiv emedia coverage in future, so the family article always would look like a somewhat extended Pippa article. Better leave her alone and merge all other family members into the family article until one of them deserves his/her own. --Adornix (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "More extensive coverage"? Right, she'll probably buy a new dress at some point in the future, most likely even more than one dress, and maybe carry more haggis into a pub somewhere. I find it difficult to convince myself she'll grow an additional butt. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe some paparazzo will catch her on a bicycle, though. Then the photos will appear in the tabloids, and a serious paper or two will mention the new Facebook page that will inevitably be created to celebrate this. Hans Adler 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge per Hans Adler, non notable biography, only notable for being the sister and press frolicking over her looks. Notable in a discussion about the family but not as a BLP. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merger would be contrary to the finding of the AFD. Merger would not mitigate BLP issues in any way because it would just move the material from one place to another.  It would, however, make matters worse because forcing people into a family grouping would tend to contravene BLP considerations for several reasons:
 * It would display reputable family members alongside their black sheep and so taint their reputation.
 * It would force a relationship upon the family members which they might not wish. What if there are divorces or other family disputes?
 * It would require family members to placed in an ordering or ranking which might cause further bad feeling.
 * Members of other families would tend to overlap and there would be dissension about the boundary of the family - who is in and who is out?
 * It would suggest that the Middletons are being given this derogatory treatment because they are commoners rather than aristocracy.
 * Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lulz. About half of Elizabeth, The Queen Mother's siblings lack articles. Hot Stop (c) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A large number of her relations were mentally disabled such as Katherine Bowes-Lyon. This does not seem to be a laughing matter and it seems best to cover people separately for reasons of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Pippa and James would be more than happy if the only sleight afforded to them by Wikipedia was an inference that one was more important than the other simply by the ordering of their small sections which contained just the reliable coverage of their independent lives in the Family article. Compared to the imbalance, inferences and general salacious and trivial shite that has gone into these completely unsustainable biographies to make up for the fact that there is not enough in depth reliable significant material on them out there, it's nothing frankly. How people can with a straight face think that either of these people would read their separate articles as hosted by Wikipedia now and be remotely happy, I'll never know. Sticking to reliable sources alone and ignoring Kate completely, James is a cake maker who can read, and Pippa is a party planner who can wear a dress. Yes, I can see how it would be a complete BLP disaster to stop pretending that's a fair treatment of the subjects, and merge that paltry coverage into the one topic outside the wedding that actually got any in depth coverage, the family. To track the logic of this nonsense to its crazy conclusion, in terms of preventing Wikipedia from causing offense, how pissed off would you be right now if you were Michael? The only person not considered worthy of an article, is the head of the household. Worse, the notable bits of his life are considered only fit to be used as padding for the article on Pippa. MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on previous AfDs: AfDs are not normally about merging. Merging is a light-weight decision that does not normally require a formal discussion. Sometimes editors are even attacked if they take an article which they think should be merged to AfD. In the first AfD the idea of merging did not come up at all. In the second AfD, a single editor voted "delete or merge", but the option of merging was not otherwise discussed. Under these circumstances neither AfD can possibly serve as prior consensus not to merge, and every single !vote that is based exclusively on the misconception that there was such a prior consensus, without offering a valid reason not to merge, will have to be discounted by the closing admin. (I expect that this discussion will be closed by an admin, as it is already so contentious.) Hans Adler 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. I hope people aren't circumventing the deletion process here. The above comment ("Merging is a light-weight decision") is a bit silly in this context. Not when a massive AFD debate has just closed with a keep. In any case, she is notable enough for her own article. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC Hot Stop (c) 22:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please state what exactly makes here notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does that have to be restated when two failed AfDs have affirmed it, one recently? OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing was affirmed; there were mantras of shesnotableshesnotableshesnotableshesnotableshesnotableshesnotable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge Two noisy and highly trafficked AFD's have come down as keeps, and with the mountains of coverage, her notability is really beyond question. Courcelles 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everytime someone in this debate uses phrases like "mountains" of coverage about this person, I just burst out laughing. The example definition in WP:BIO of non-trivial in depth coverage of a notable person is a 200 page printed biography by a credible author. The only people who would ever write 200 pages about a person based on the sort of sources held up here as 'coverage', and then call it a credible biography, are Wikipedia editors. Can you imagine persuading anybody to actually pay for the content presented in this 'article', on the premise it was a 'biography' of Pippa Middleton? You'd get locked up by trading standards. The people citing the recently closed Afds simply don't know what they are talking about frankly - there is so little coverage of Pippa out there, when people were asked to present the reliable sources that backed up their extraordinary claims, it was amazing how many of those who even bothered (it's not after all a hard task if the person really is notable), all kept coming up with the same one or two stories (showing that they hadn't even done basic due diligence and read the Afd comments which had come before their opinions). Here is a full list of the unique sources presented in that Afd as 'coverage' of her as a topic in reliable sources . Four articles. That's the full list. All of them were published in the week of the wedding, the second is barely long enough to even class as a story, and the fourth is not even a story at all. The remaining two are from the same publisher - which is again a point against. I even had an admin come to my talk page after the event and present this utter garbage as some sort of evidence. What a disgrace frankly. Anyone here who remotely thinks you could make a 200-page printed biography out of those 4 stories and the other bits & pieces extracted from stories not soley about Pippa, then please send me your contact details, as I want to sign you up to my publishing house immediately, and resign my paid employment and live off your royalties on a Carribean island. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading the guideline there, I don't think it says that a 200 page biography is the absolute minimum standard to establish notability. It does say that 200 pages is clearly non-trivial and that a 1 line listing is clearly trivial. However, it never states where the line between trivial and non-trivial definitively lies. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You misread my post - I said it's the example, not the minimum standard. If 200 sets the bar too high - who here thinks a 100 page book is possible? A 50 page soft back? Truth is, you couldn't print a 2 page pamphlet from this coverage. And to repeat - the claim here is that this person is hugely notable - therefore, you don't then expect the coverage to largely exist at the bottom end of the scale - a mention here, a paragraph there. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe I misread you-maybe you weren't very clear. In any case, your reply was pretty clear and reasonable. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge - I'm not convinced we need a separate article here, as there's not much important information exclusively about Pippa in reliable sources. These articles would be better handled by being merged into a single one on the 'Middleton family', to avoid excessively duplicating content. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge The two Afds have correctly found that Pippa Middleton is notable and that the article on her should be kept. If I am frank, I have some doubts that her parents and brother are notable, but that is another question which I suppose further Afds may need to settle. If they are notable collectively, then a single article on them may be the answer. However, if this article were merged and redirected there, that does not overcome the fact that we have established that Pippa M. is notable in her own right, so that it would always be reasonable for someone to recreate an article on the redirect. Notability is not a moveable feast. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the article, as she's only notable for being the sister of the Duchess of Cambridge. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly oppose merge. Being maid of honour and having such a high-profile and key role in the biggest royal wedding in the UK for 30 years is probably enough to justify a separate article. Unlike her younger brother, Pippa was actually the subject of much discussion in reliable sources rather than just passing mentions. And at least we have something to write here in that something is actually known about her and we don't have to add waffle to pad it out as with her brother's article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean her tobogganing on the Cresta Run at St Moritz. Oh, yeah, shuks, how could anyone have missed that major accomplishment! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. What Hans Adler says. (And as it stands, the article largely depends for its [stunningly humdrum] assertions on the tabloidest of British tabloids, and similarly crappy sources.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "the tabloidest of British tabloids" is I suppose The Sun, and while there are some references to it the article does not depend on them at all. It isn't clear what the "similarly crappy sources" are suggested to be, but they do not, I suppose, include the citations from BBC News, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the Times of India and The Scotsman, all of which we generally treat as reliable sources. It might be better not to rely too much on any newspaper, and the Daily Mail isn't The Times, but no one could call that "the tabloidest of British tabloids". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In one sense, the worst of them all is the News of the World, as this has systematically gained its raw material via criminal means. But, like its weekday edition the Sun, it makes little pretence of delivering news; rather, it's daily entertainment (sport, gossip, tits, etc). The Mail, with its phobia of foreigners, the young, the dark-skinned, the otherwise different (see Baggini, Everytown) does purport to be a newspaper; should an "encyclopedia" really depend on it? (This article cites both rags, and gossip websites.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still amazed that this article hasn't be deleted. Holy smokers, her only true claim to fame is being Catherine's sister. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems to be a varied form of deletion discussion as we had already twice-negotiated -and twice the decission was keep, thus a separate article was twice-accepted. It's like pissing in the wind and gormless! -- LeoDavid (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge! - Come on, she is the sister of a future queen of the UK! Although there is not yet much to say about her, there is already enough about her in the newspapers and she is notable enough for a separate article. This will be undoubtedly more in the future. Furthermore, I even would argue that the Middleton family page itself should be deleted and split because the Middleton family as such as a House or Family is not notable enough (!) Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Future Queen? She's not even a real princess, and at best would only become King's Consort. Mabuska (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Comment! Ehm, you mean Queen Consort. Pippa Middleton is the sister-in-law of a future king and already a very public person! That's damn notable! Anyway, I don't understand the obsession by some here to see this separate page being removed. Is it because of chronic shortage of wikipedia space? Really strange if you consider that less important subjects, like a Pokémon character, or all member of the Rodham family (of Hillary Clinton) all have their own pages, even their cat and dog Socks and Buddy! And somehow Pippa Middleton is not notable enough for some here to have her own page? It's a mystery to me. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose! - I agree with Mr. D. E. Mophon. Since her sister's marriage Philippa is a public person, as we all know her since then. I also strongly doubt that Philippa is less important than Princess Kate's dog Otto. Joerg, the Flag of Barbados.svg BajanZindy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Hardly a remarkably notable enough person to warrant their own article. So she's the sister of Kate and raised eyebrows amongst other things with her outfit at the wedding - does that warrant an article? I don't think so, but it definately merits its own section in an article. 11 for and 13 against at the moment - very tight and clearly equals no consensus at the moment.Mabuska (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose She has some independent notability as a socialite, it seems. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Merge was not the outcome of the recent AfD, nor should it be. Plenty of sources were produced which showed independent notability. WP:INHERITED states that someone is not notable merely by virtue of being related to someone notable, but when you have reliable sources focussing on Pippa, not Kate, you cannot argue that she hasn't attained notability of her own, even if it was that relationship that initiated it. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this article will grow and will be better off as a separate article with a summary of its content in the family article.  As others have mentioned above, Pippa has gotten lots of press attention independent of her sister.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge: As with Barack Obama's family, I think there should be something similar with the Duchess of Cambridge's family, no exclusive articles for her relatives; I think that is not 'encyclopedic'. --Gonzaloluengo (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is a bit confusing. There's also noted, that "Queen Elizabeth II is Barack Obama's 16th cousin once removed"... -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, along with all the other members that are not the duchess herself. This would be quite simple if there was no wedding fever. None of them are independently notable, but they do have enough coverage as the family of the duchess to warrant a list-type article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge She is notable enough to have an article. Portillo (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Praytell, why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the answer to that, please see the first and second Afds. To reopen that question, use an Afd, not a proposed merger, which does not determine notability. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant. "she's notable [no reason given]"-"yeah but she's really notable"-"The Germans kept her"-"67,000 people looked at the page"-"There's a facebook-page about her ass"-"she's interesting and attractive"-"blahblahblahshesnotableshesnotableitellyareally". I was looking for an actual answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit lazy; it's all there for you to see on the AfDs; rehashing the same arguments over and over again is helping no-one. Indeed, this is the third attempt to kill off the article in 10 weeks and it's beginning to get disruptive. She has a phenomenal amount of independent coverage: the mantra of "tabloidtabloidtabloidtabloidtabloidtabloidtabloid" is no argument. Yes, she has a famous sister and yes, she attracts tabloid interest - but she has also established notability of her own and it is established in reliable sources. The Daily Telegraph (non-tabloid) even addresses your concern directly: "But Pippa is no clinger to coattails. Her society trajectory has been dazzling of its own accord". RichardOSmith (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And as I said above - for someone who supposedly gets a "phenomenal amount" of coverage, it's odd how it's always the same 1 or 2 sources that people come up with to hang this claim of notability on. From the same publisher to boot, who's rehasing stuff they already printed. It's almost as if there's nothing else out there? And to address this source directly - the quote is a hint of why she is being written about. That's it. A hint. Can you imagine anyone coming along in an argument about whether Albert Einstein was notable, and presenting the same source over and over and over again, which merely said, 'dear Alby certainly made his mark on the world of physics', and then sitting back claiming 'there you are'! There's the smoking gun! This debate is soooh over!. What's that? You wouldn't mind seeing some coverage as to what he actually did in the field of Physics, given that his article says he was a notable Physicist? Don't be ridiculous! That's disruption!.' MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Deleting family article - there are proposals to delete the Middleton family page itself, in which I’m in favor of it. See Talk:Middleton family. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A further biographical article from The Daily Telegraph today can only add to her notability credentials - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 07:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeat coverage of the exact same details is not proving a higher notability - most certainly not when it's from the same publisher who appears to be the only one who has also produced the few past pieces. It takes absolutely zero effort on the part of a journalist to rehash a piece using information they themselves recently published. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. An obvious attempt to subvert the AfD process, which established her notability in terms of prosopography and her influence on fashion. Historically, the notability of women has often depended on relationships; Philippa Roet is an example. See this article in the business section of the New York Times yesterday, where Pippa Middleton's choice of dress for the wedding has spawned a line for a major bridal retailer: "executives in the bridal business say this is the first time they can recall companies wishing to design a dress based on what a bridesmaid wore." Firsts are generally considered notable. We have articles on individual characters from sitcoms. We have probably hundreds of articles on minor professional sports figures who have set no records, established no firsts, and have utterly unremarkable personal lives. The problems of sourcing here are no different from those pertaining to any other BLP on a young or emerging celebrity or entertainer. I agree with RichardOSmith that the campaign against this article is approaching DE. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive to claim other articles justify this one's existence. If you want to claim this is a credible first in this field, then the other articles you would need to be coming up for an other stuff argument to have any weight here at all are of other people who set similar 'firsts' in the field. The existence of articles on sitcom characters or Pokemon or whatever else, do not make this biography any more of a sham - you are required to justify it against the policies, which exist to set the current objective standard. Anything else is logical fallacy. The next time you see an article you don't think should exist, put it up for deletion, and if the community doesn't agree with you, then you might just learn for example what goes into the decisions to not keep debating whether every single athlete or actor who reaches a certain level is notable and thus is likely to meet the current guidelines. The comparison for someone who has such a uniquely singular claim as Pippa, is completely irrelevant. With all of these pointless other stuff arguemnts, and just notable assertions, nobody here is learning anything about how the supporters of this article think it meets any policy or guideline. And no, firsts are not automatically considered notable, it all depends on the significance - first man/woman to walk on the Moon, yes, first man/woman to eat 100 donuts in a minute, no. You need to put the claim into persepective, and this first most certainly does not sound like something you hang a whole biography on. Person X, born on Y in place Z, was the first woman to wear a bridesmaids dress which was later sold as a wedding dress. I mean come on, Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not the world's largest database of trivia either. In a cold reading, this 'first' sounds exactly like what it essentially is - something you would briefly mention in a wider article, rather than something you turn into the basic premise of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't nominate articles for deletion if they provide or have the potential to provide reliable information that WP readers might look up. "Notability" is not the same as "importance": I don't think Pippa Middleton is important; I couldn't care less. But:
 * Procedurally, the AfD determined the independent notability of the topic. The AfD attracted a significant number of comments from editors, some and perhaps many who had no prior participation in this article or its talk page. The consensus to keep was based on:
 * WP:BASIC: Pippa Middleton has appeared and continues to appear in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Since the second AfD, additional mainstream media such as major daily newspapers have been provided for consideration as sources. The subject is now more notable than before the AfD attempt.
 * Historical significance. The prosopography of royalty, their court, retainers, lovers, and hangers-on, is a well-established field of inquiry within historical studies.
 * Independent notability. Pippa Middleton has been established as a significant influence on the fashion industry, which is a multi-billion dollar business. The NYT story explicitly credits her taste in fashion with generating a line of merchandise worth thousands, if not millions, of dollars. This has an economic impact that affects individual manufacturers and retailers in a way that a record for eating doughnuts does not.
 * For these two reasons, her significance extends beyond participation in a single event. WP:1E states "As both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."
 * An attempt to merge this article with one already targeted for deletion has the same effect as a third AfD. This is contrary to community consensus.
 * The WP:DE policy defines a disruptive editor as one who "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors" and "perpetuate[s] disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it." Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add: These are arguments for retaining the article as notable. As it stands, however, it does use too many dubious sources, and often reads more like celebrity gossip than an encyclopedia article. It needs serious improvement, but deficiencies of quality are not grounds to delete or merge. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "defines a disruptive editor as one who" &mdash; Off2riorob, Hans Adler, MickMacNee, Hot Stop, Jenks24, Dr. Blofeld, Robofish, Hoary, Mabuska, Crisco 1492, and Seb az86556. Block'em all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's grammar for you. "defines a disruptive editor as one who", or "defines disruptive editor s as those who" - take your pick. But you're not seriously suggesting that the guideline (which was not even directly quoted there) only allows for there to be one disruptive editor on the project, do you? Furthermore, you're listing people who are merely expressing or re-expressing their (validly held) opinion here - you could include us all in your list. The disruptive ones are those that keep re-initiating the process; the others you owe an apology to. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asked to justify my position on the basis of policy, which I attempted to do after being accused of disruption by MickMacNee for making a single comment on this page in support of the AfD consensus. Seemed a bit out of line with the actual guidelines defining DE. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What's more disruptive than anything else is someone who continaully copies and pastes the text of something like BASIC and simply declaring 'it's been met', and pretending that's a substitute for making a logical and cogent argument as to how this article actually meets it. And your copy and paste job isn't even a complete argument - first off, you have completely and utterly ignored the fact that it is a presumption - meeting the GNG is a presumption that considering this person notable would not violate our other more important policies like NOT or BLP. Well, Wikipedia is not a tabloid - if we host a biography, it has to look like a biography. Take out all the shit which is 'coverage' as it is loosely defined in here, and you aren't left with much of a biography at all. That's what's supposed to be important here, not how many people can parrot stock phrases in Afd. And the fact this article has for nearly two weeks contained content sourced soley to the likes of the Dail Mail means it is still a basic BLP violation - this isn't even up for debate - BLP demands the use of reliable sources for all content in biographies. Second, you've ignored the phrase intellectually independent, even though I have about three times above pointed out that a large majority of the reliable major coverage is from the same publisher repeating the same facts. Third, you've ignored in BASIC what it actually uses as the examples of what constitutes trivial and what constitutes in depth coverage. I will ask again - where on the scale of 200 page book to 1 line mention does this article actually fall - and is that remotely credible given some of the fantastic claims made about the impact Pippa has had on the world. And why are people so fixated on one paragraph of single guidelines? There are hundreds of other policy and guideline snippets, and many many essays, which all outline just why this biography is such a bad article - and anyone who remotely thinks the past Afds got anywhere near to that level of discussion, is dreaming. Those Afds represented nothing except how easy it is to circumvent basic principles like 'Wikiedia is an encyclopoedia' when you allow people the freedom to be allowed to make barely relevant arguments, or to simply copy and paste things like the basic GNG stock phrase as some sort of opinion, without having to show in the actual debate that they really understand what it means. And on the other points you made outside BASIC, they're nothing more than rather large violations of WP:CRYSTAL - you've essentially just asked others to suspend all rational thought and just believe that she will be historically researched in future simply for being a relation of the future (far far in the future) Queen, or that she will be hailed in future as having had a large economic impact on fashion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This was the fourth or fifth longish rant you made in this !vote to comment the votings of other people. You showed the same behavior in one of the AfDs. I want to express my opinion, that this is not helpfull but quite disruptive. Honestly, I find it very unpleasant to read again and again, how bad you think the keeping of this article is, how terribly WP principles were circumvented and so on. You seem to think most keep or oppose merge voters don't understand Wikipedia, the keeping Admin was deciding only for populist reasons and so on. Please stop offending anyone who has an other opinion than you have. Thanks, Adornix (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think everybody's opinion in here has been equally valid, and it doesn't really matter what they say - they all have a right not to have to defend their ideas lest they get 'offended', then you really don't understand Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy or guideline that specifies that all articles in WP are required to be the subject of 200-page books in order to be notable. I agree that the article needs to be rewritten to sound encyclopedic. It's uncivil and disruptive not to let others make a statement and leave it at that. I'm sorry that this discussion is so emotionally difficult for MickMacNee, and I apologize if I misunderstood him when he asked that I relate my reasons to specific policy points. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it was the policy. It's the example, and shows just how far this page is away from showing notability. I've expanded further above on the exact same topic, perhaps you can reply up there if you want, as I'm being told off by Adornix for repeating myself down here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've taken a long at the references and there appear to be sufficient coverage from independent reliable sources to make her notable according to our guidelines. I've taken a look at the merge target and I can't seen how the reader would be advantaged in a merger. Edgepedia (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if my count is perfect, but it's currently looking like 13 for "support merge" and 18 for "oppose merge." OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is clear that there is no consensus for a merge, but I have to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy: Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very familiar with the !vote concept. It was a simple tally for anyone who was interested, as it wasn't really clear from quickly scanning the section whether opinion tipped in one way or the other. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you :-P But as I said, your counting makes it clear there is no consensus for a merge. I don't think this will change, but give this discussion in total a week, and than we can close it. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging article. Two AFDs have already comne back as "keep" -- re-hashing a double-keep AFD through a "merge" discussion is not a good idea at all.  "Not getting your way in AFD" is not a reason to merge an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD is needed
Forget the merge stuff, this article needs to be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that it's already passed two AfD's as a Keep - Happysailor  (Talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy smokers, what's with this Middleton craze? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The last decision keep was on 30 April 2011. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, she easily passes the relevant guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any further deletion discussions at this point would be disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Business material
I cannot quite believe this, but I have just been accused of disruption and reverted  for moving the following information from the 'Early Life' section, over to the empty section on Business interests in the Middleton family article.


 * In the mid 1980s, when her two eldest children were at a pre-school and the family was living at Bradfield Southend, Middleton's mother set up 'Party Pieces', a company which began by making party bags and which now sells party supplies and decorations by mail order. By 1995 the firm, run by both parents, was so successful that it moved into a range of farm buildings at Ashampstead Common.

The charge is that I am surrepticiously trying to merge this article piece by piece, in apparent subversion of the discussion above. Is there anybody here apart from the reverter who is going to try and defend this position? Because if people are going to play this sort of game, instead of simply assuming good faith and consider that this was a simple case of placing the information where it is most relevant, I can equally start flinging about accusations that the editor reverting is seeking to retain material here which has barely anything to do with the subject, in a tendentious attempt to make this article appear as if it has more content about Pippa than it actually does.

If I've simply been remiss and somehow missed in the extensive coverage everyone argues exists on Pippa, that somewhere someone has written about the effect on the pre-school age Pippa that this decision by her mother to set up a business, and then move it, had on her, such that it warrants noting as part of her 'Early Life', then I will of course most humbly apologise for this error. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it presents an important aspect of the subject's background and, as such, belongs here. Whilst that view is arguable, what is clear-cut is that there is a merge discussion in progress and, with absolutely no mandate for a merge forming, you have unilaterally started the process. For that reason, I reverted it and notified you that I considered it to be disruptive. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I said anybody but the reverter. Your view was already clear with your rather spurious warning for disruption and the blind revert. I suggest you simply wait to see if anyone else agrees with you, as I'm already pretty irritated by your blatant failure to assume good faith. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. The material was advertising for a private company, coatracked into an article where it is at best marginally relevant. I have removed it as such. Hans Adler 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With only minor changes, that is part of the article which I put there when I was creating it. I believe it belongs here, because Pippa M. now works for 'Party Pieces', as explained in a later paragraph, and the removal of the information detracts from the reader's ability to follow her career, such as it is. I do not see why it should be called "advertising". Hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles mention the names of companies, when people work for businesses, especially family businesses, their biographies can't do without the information. Almost every entry for a business man or woman in Who's Who or the Dictionary of National Biography includes one or more business names. That is also not "advertising".
 * I do not wish to line up with the accusation that anyone is doing anything surreptitious. However, copying material to another article is one thing, copying it elsewhere and deleting it here, damaging the flow of the article, isn't something I support, and I shall join RichardOSmith in reinstating what was deleted. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how removing this stuff damaged the flow of the article. I now see that the article never actually mentions the parents' occupation otherwise, and that should of course be fixed. I would do it myself, but I don't know if we have sources indicating that the parents are still running the company. With that information, it should be no problem to replace the second paragraph of the Early life section by a single sentence in the first. That will do more for the flow of the article than this irrelevant stuff. Encyclopedias don't go into excruciating details about parents of barely notable people unless there is something really remarkable to say. Hans Adler 06:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder, could we please have no sneers about "barely notable people"? Two Afds have found PM to be notable, and that is the answer to that question. I do not find the details in question "excruciating". The notability of the parents will I suspect be determined by other Afds, but in any event some details of the family business in which the subject of the article works are essential to an article such as this. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article survived two AfDs only proves that it wasn't possible to get it deleted. It does not prove that she meets our notability standards (although I would not go so far as to say she doesn't), and it certainly doesn't prove that she meets them more than narrowly. As to "excruciating": When the article on a barely notable party planner tries to go into the same level of detail as the article Early life and career of Barack Obama does for the current US president, then someone has clearly lost sight of proportions and of the relative importance of the subjects. This is just the usual cruft that accumulates in pseudo-biographies of people about whom there is practically nothing interesting to say. Hans Adler 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This claim is a Mantra. It's all water under the bridge now. -- 78.34.165.158 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The article is still a pseudo-biography. Which is generally considered to be forbidden by WP:BLP. Hans Adler 13:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Better pics
We should move on from these inmature edit wars on her notabilty and concentrate on improving the article where it lacks most. So, anyone having pics of her with higher resolution? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sort of people who are willing to take pictures and give them away to Wikipedia do not hang around waiting for talk page requests like this before they upload them. And if you want to add free pictures you haven't taken yourself, you can do what everyone else does and search for them on the appropriate licences, although I can guarantee that's already been done by several people already, many times over. Until someone takes one and donates it, or finds a free one, we are going to have to make do with what we have. And it's not like it brings down the overall quality is it? A low quality pic that doesn't really show her true likeness and looks like it was taken from far away and without her knowledge rather fits the theme of the whole biography quite fittingly. Of course, if her likeness was even a tenth as iconic and notable in the world of fashion/society etc as has been claimed, fair use of a sufficient quality non-free image could be claimed, but the coverage that would actually support that idea simply doesn't exist either. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for better pictures, as and when someone donates them, but in the mean time pictures are not essential and I think what we have will do for now. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Should Coat of Arms be removed?
Should a coat of arms created for Kate Middleton be included, and fully described, on her sister's page?--Scott Mac 22:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Why is this included? This is the coat of arms created for Kate and really has nothing to do with Pippa. No sources are discussing Pippa's heraldry. Indeed, the two cited for the arms - one does not mention Pippa at all, the other in passing says "only Kate and Pippa can use this". I'm not disputing the fact that Pippa could use these - but does she? has she? We are not an heraldic encyclopedia. At best this is worth a footnote that she's entitled to use the arms created for her sister.--Scott Mac 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. Such unencyclopedic nobility-nosing has no place here. BLP articles are not playgrounds. Hans Adler 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV! Heraldry is also serious, and commoners use coats of arms as well as aristocrats. We should not jam sincere desire for knowledge. That would be gormless -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there sources to show that this heraldry is pertinent to an understanding of the subject? Does she use it? Has she commented on it? This is a bit like putting a tartan banner on everyone with a Scottish surname - just because tartan geeks might be interested and they are entitled to wear it.--Scott Mac 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wise ruler as always. She might use it, and because it's a part of her sister's royal arms and each acorn spring is a symbol for each sibling, she will do. -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will she? Can you give me some evidence? A source?--Scott Mac 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this rhetoric worrying. Heraldry is an integral part of tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles, and I see no reason to look for arguments to exclude it from this one. The statement "only Kate and Pippa can use this" was true before the royal wedding, but now Kate has her own newly impaled arms and only Pippa can use the spinster form of the Middleton arms. Whether she does actually use it is an academic point. It is the right to do so which is of interest to a herald. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally i don't think it merits inclusion if she doesn't use it. Mabuska (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether she does use this is an academic point? Eh? We don't include academic points on articles unless sources show they are a significant part of understanding the subject. There is absolutely no source doing that here. We are WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. We are not an encyclopedia of heraldry. We include heraldry where it is significant and not where it isn't. Here there is no evidence of significance. This coat of arm was create for and because of Kate, and it belongs on her article. Even if she's not currently entitle to use it, its creation is entirely about Kate not Pippa. Of course, that may change, but we don't do future speculation either. The fact that her sister got a coat or arms made, which (by "academic point") Pippa is entitled to use (but never apparently has) is at best trivia. It merits a sentence of a footnote a best - not a lengthy illustrated description of the coat of arms.--Scott Mac 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (stumbles on the stage with a white face) But, but, ... but if we cannot plaster the article with the usual insignia of the superior type of human it will look like the biography of a commoner! And everybody will notice that it's not even a proper biography! (falls off the stage) Hans Adler 17:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that is pointless to include if she doesn't use it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Scot Mac: so, the coat of arms is trivia, but your silly article on a dog (Otto Middleton) is, of course, no trivia! -- LeoDavid (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Kate Middleton's family gets coat of arms, to notice: her family, not only Kate. Thus, the graphic representation is a spinster-coat of arms, today only Pippa Middleton is allowed to use this. -- LeoDavid (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scott Mac and Hans: no evidence of significance. I've removed the coat of arms rubbish again. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Since when is a coat of arms rubbish??? The decision to remove a picture with the coat of arms is quite POV. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mr. and Mrs. Middleton and their children took enormous interest in this design and, while its purpose is to provide a traditional heraldic identity for Catherine, as she marries into the Royal Family, the intent was to represent the whole Middleton family together," said Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms and Senior Herald in England who approved the design. All three of Michael Middleton's children will be entitled to use the coat of arms and Kate's brother James will pass on that right to his descendants." citation. -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing new here. The family were interested in the arms designed for Kate. The other kids are entitled to use it. Yes, yes. It is worth a sentence to say that, maybe. Nothing more.--Scott Mac 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LeoDavid has been notified of imminent 3RR breaching. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Straightforward brazen. The children took also enormous interest in the design, because they're entitled to use it. Everything else is laughable, but it's okay, there's a club of know-it-alls ;-) LeoDavid (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Scott Mac created a few hours ago the article Otto (Middleton family dog). This article on a simply family dog is, of course, more important than the coat of arms of the family. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn't say they took enormous interest because they are entitled to use it. Interpreting "enormous interest" from a lifestyle piece to mean anything significant is quite a stretch. If they were enormously interested because they were able to use it, why aren't they using it? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord Wisenheimer, how do you know? Please note, that the coat of arms of the Middleton family primal exists since a few days ago. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do I know what? I've said just the opposite, I've asserted that we don't know because the source doesn't reveal it, in response to your statement "The children took also enormous interest in the design, because they're entitled to use it. " which isn't what the source says, so maybe you should look in the mirror and ask your question "Oh, Lord Wisenheimer, how do you know?". --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When I mentioned "Lord Wisenheimer", I was referring to your last question: "If they were enormously interested because they were able to use it, why aren't they using it?" Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. -- LeoDavid (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still the same problem, we don't know because we don't have a source to say different. So "I know" in so far as from the WP:V point of view, it is indistinguishable them not using it (and not having a source for that) and them using it but having no source to verify that. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to Rfc- It seems to me that until more information is available as to Pippa's use of the coat of arms, a short statement about her right to use it is sufficient. We don't know yet whether or not she will ever use it- so most of this debate is mute. We don't know yet if this is significant information about her- yes having the right to use a coat of arms is significant, but not worth spending time discussing unless it is actually used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with most of the above. The children were interested because they or their descendants will be entitled to use it. They are not entitled while their father is alive surely? Except with a mark of difference. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on heraldry which is why I have refrained from commenting here, but I can say that when the article did contain the information (such as this version) it showed a design which was unique to Pippa Middleton. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that Kittybrewster is wrong: in british commoner heraldry, only sons need a mark of difference while their father is alive, and spinsters don't, because daughters normally can't pass on the right to use it to their descendants. By using a lozenge, it's indicated that it's a woman's coat of arms. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my comment. Because Pippa is English and English heraldry is far sloppier than Scottish heraldry. I don't know what British heraldry is. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am entirely with the supporters of the heraldry section. It is interesting and is no less encyclopedic than the coats of arms included in tens of thousands of other Wikipedia articles. Those wishing to remove it do not seem to me to have a balanced view of the question. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WARNING
Floquenbeam has said in the most recent edit summary "I'll block the next person who reverts that particular section back in, and/or back out, until consensus is reached." - everyone please bear this in mind Exxolon (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit summary makes no sense at all, as it clearly aims to preserve whatever status quo exists at the time, whether the section is in or out, and I do not think a responsible admin could justify that position. I can see no consensus for removing the whole section. I shall restore at least an image of the arms, which perhaps no one will object to. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the the admin in question was way out of line with the ban threat. If there is no consensus to remove it, it should have stayed. In any case, adding the picture is a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Affirmation. -- LeoDavid (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. I am not convinced this is relevant. This is not a royalty/nobility article. Hans Adler 06:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You do know Zara Phillips isn't royalty or nobility, don't you? And yet she as an "Arms" section. But what about the illustration as we have it? I think it's a great compromise. StAnselm (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Adler: Kindly note that you're all wet! A personal coat of arms, thus it is lozenge-shaped, doesn't mean royalty or nobility. -- 78.34.165.158 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 78.34.165.158, you are right. A coat of arms without supporters is that of a gentleman and not a nobleman. Thank you for the support for including this one as an image, but could we please eschew the name-calling aimed at Hans Adler? Moonraker2 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. No offense meant ;-) 78.34.165.158 (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your concern about my health, but please see WP:Talk page guidelines if you don't want to be blocked. The difference between nobility and other people is that for nobility a coat of arms can be considered relevant even if it is not actually used in practice. For other articles that is not the case. And that's precisely the situation we have here: Some people try to push a coat of arms into the article even though we can't know at this stage whether the subject will ever use it. This is just part of the general pattern of decorating the article with templates and trivia to hide the fact that it is not a biography. Hans Adler 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual RfC responses regarding Coat of Arms inclusion

 * Keep The first reference makes clear that, 'A version of the coat of arms, which can only be used by Kate or her sister Pippa...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you doing a poll or what? Hans Adler 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am responding to the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Funnily enough, I had completely forgetten that this was supposed to be an RfC. I have taken the liberty of adding a new heading directly above your response. I hope that's OK, otherweise just revert. Hans Adler 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as almost-unique to the subject. This is not a device that can be used by hundreds or thousands of people per the Scottish tartan/plaid comparison someone made above, it is distinct to a handful of people and is relevant to the articles for those people. Whether they choose to use it or not isn't a convincing argument, considering we include a lot of information in biographies that their subjects don't use, birth names being one that comes to mind. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Commment since when did an RFC require a bolded sentiment at the front? It's "request for comment" are not the above this "actual RfC responses" comments on the matter in hand? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It improves readability on a high-traffic page with multiple concurrent threads. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask what the utility in bolding sentiments was, the comments above this are valid comments on the subject and are every bit a part of the discussion as those without bolded sentiments. There is no reason to discount them merely on the basis of form --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove No evidence that it's actually being used, and as such is trivia fluff. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) aA
 * Keep: heraldry is notable, and new heraldry is unusual and interesting. I found it rather over the top when a whole expansive section of the article was devoted to the arms, and the relevant thread above was to do with whether to keep that section or not. What we seem to be talking about now is the small illustration with a caption, which is interesting and in my view gives the article a lift. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This was to do with the expansive section, I don't think anyone is bothered by the small illustration. I'm personally indifferent. I assume from this you support the removal of the larger section.--Scott Mac 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Without question heraldry is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. A coat of arms awarded by a ruling monarch can certainly be verified and reliably sourced.  I guess I don't understand the issue here as to why, acording to Wikipedia policy, this should not be included.  All I see is a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which, of course, doesn't count. SeanNovack (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course heraldry is notable enough for Wikipedia - and it is verifiable. What's a question is whether a coat of arms created for her sister ought to be included on the article of all other family members whether they use it or not. Your view on that would be appreciated. It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKE IT - which is actually an overused way of rejecting arguments you don't like without actually answering them.--Scott Mac 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Techno, moonraker2, seannovack. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. Keep what?--Scott Mac 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the arms. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are two sets being discussed here. The small box with the arms (as currently on the article) is not seriously being contested.--Scott Mac 15:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we get over these deletion wars now?
An article in The New York Times, published today, focuses directly and fully on her. For those who are not American, the NYT is regarded as the US' newspaper of record. I believe this should satisfy anyone looking for reasons that she does not pass WP:GNG... but I could be wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not her notability but the damage we are doing through this pseudo-biography. Almost everything that is written about her is too trivial or too inappropriate to mention in a biography, or would create the problems described under WP:NPF if included. We don't have to have an article on a topic just because it's notable. We have thousands of extremely notable topics that we cover in a related article for organisational reasons. Hans Adler 09:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a few things written about Dame Edna Everage are also too trivial. Who cares? Of course, crudely nonsense will be returned -- 78.34.165.158 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing damaging or in violation of WP:BLP. Deleting something because one person thinks it is "too trivial" is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is not in alignment with the purpose of Wikipedia.  Somebody someplace seems to think it is a topic notable enough for inclusion in major newspapers worldwide, so we write about it here.  Are there "better" or "higher value" topics to write about other than this?  Probably--but that doesn't matter.  Wikipedia editors are free to add to the encyclopedia as their enthusiasm, interests, and knowledge fit.  While it's true that we don't have to include every topic that could pass the notability bar, on at least two specific occasions (plus the merge discussion above), WP:CONSENSUS has decided to keep this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or let's be consistent and put the Sun's Page 3 photos on our main page under the fair use clause. Just because a lot of former newspapers have evolved into entertainment publications doesn't mean encyclopedias must follow the trend. We are not about making money, so we don't have to follow the tabloids' trend. Our integrity in this respect is precisely why on most topics we come first on Google, and not the Daily Mail. Hans Adler 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Daily Telegraph, who have covered most of what's in that piece 3 times already, is also a newspaper of record. While the NYT piece is evidence that she gets coverage, it contains absolutely nothing new - and as such, per the actual guideline, it's not adding anything at all to the largely weak arguments made already. The article even starts with the line: "She has uttered barely a word in public and given precisely one interview". Does that sound like someone who Wikipedia should be hosting borderline biographies on, based largely on the tittle tattle and trivia scraped largely from the gossip sheets? The job of a paper of record like the NYT is to interview the notable people, so that they can act as the reliable secondary sources upon which Wikipedia's tertiary biographies are based on. This piece however turns that completely upside down - their piece here is infact just a sort of review and round up of all the tabloid attention, and thus is arguably bordering on being a tertiary source in itself, and thus useless to Wikipedia. Infact, if one was being overly suspicious given some of the things they've picked up on like the Tatler award and that Sykes quote, one would wonder if the writer didn't just come to Wikipedia instead of doing their own research for even this piece of regurgitation, which would just about cap off this ridiculous idea that Wikipedia biographies supposedly reflect the real world coverage as a tertiary source. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that since this subject has barely uttered a word and only given one interview, but has managed to have such widespread coverage, then that's a reason to have the article, not to delete the article. That said, I don't know any place in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that state that a person has to give an interview to be notable and included in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Policies and guidelines are not proscriptive. I don't know of any policy or guideline that states I cannot use this article to write all about her ass because I am fascinated by it and it got lots of media coverage. It doesn't make it any less of a clueless thing to be doing. You'll find the basic principles in WP:BLP though. While Pippa is not a private person, she has as much rights as anyone else not be to be written about by Wikipedia as if she were public property and is truly notable, when there is absolutely nothing of any substance to be said, except what has been focused on/speculated/made up, by tabloids. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It's an encyclopoedia. That is actually supposed to mean something. Or it used to. Maybe she'll read the article and be so disgusted that people think it's an accurate, fair, balanced representation of her life, that she'll be forced to give more interviews just so it can be made to look less shit. Is that the agenda here? Or are you really going to claim in all seriousness that this piece of rubbish is the sort of thing you would really get, if a truly notable person really had been the subject of "widespread coverage" that was actually in depth and significant, and from reliable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please get a WP:CLUE. If you are unable to respond to the points made, then don't get involved at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded. You simply do not like the article and it is clear from your comments.  Being rude to me won't make me change my mind and think you're right.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't respond in the slightest. If you actually read WP:CIVIL, then you'll realise that when someone replies to a post of yours with the level of depth and reason that I did, and then you respond with a snarky link, then it's you who's being rude. I will repeat, if your sole conrtibution here is to claim I simply 'don't like' the article, then thanks, but no thanks, you might aswell have stayed silent as far as convincing me or anyone else that you've anything serious to offer, let alone can actually address the points made. MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick MacNee, would it please be possible to eschew the name-calling? I do not agree that the article is "this piece of rubbish", and I find that lacking in civility to those (including me) who have written it. The reference to "a truly notable person" suggests that PM is not "truly notable", as if there were a difference between "notable" and "truly notable", but there isn't. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant truly notable as in notable according to the objective standard, rigourously defended through logical argument. Not as in 'enough people managed to blindly assert it was notable for it to be kept in Wikipedia'. The fact you don't see it as a piece of rubbish is I'm afraid, the heart of the problem. You really think that this a quality biography? You think that what you've helped to write here really passes not only the BLP policy, but all common sense ideas about what makes a well rounded, balanced, non-trivial, non-tabloid, encyclopoedia article claiming to document someone's life? If you really believe so, then by all means put it up for Good Article status, or even Featured status. Believe me when I say that achieving those standards is, with a bit of elbow grease, an achievable task for article on someone who is truly notable and really has had lots of in depth coverage in reliable sources. For something like this however, not so much. And on Wikipedia, there's nothing incivil or even rude about telling people the truth I'm afraid. MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good article status is quite feasible for this article. The main difficulty would be stability, given the interest in the topic and the youth of the subject, but it might be stable for six months or so, to qualify.  Note that a GA is not required to be long or comprehensive, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's as stable as it's going to get. 10 edits a day, comprising trivial changes and necessary BLP reverts. It frankly wouldn't pass GA if someone like Raul was doing the assessment. Take a look at the career section. Never mind comprehensive, it has just one line that can remotely be described as factualy describing what her 'career' even is. One line! Sure, GA allows short articles, but that's taking the mick if one is claiming its broad in its coverage. Infact, why is all the socialite trivia, hearsay & Tatler accolade even classed as part of the Career section? It's Personal Life if anything. MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of that is agreed, MickMacNee, and I previously removed the "Career" heading as I felt the same way about it. Plainly, PM is not notable for her career, which is trivial. Essentially, she is notable for her fame, which relies largely on her connections and allure. The 1920s would have called her an It girl. I suppose you are chafing under that, MickMacNee, but there is nothing new under the sun, and you cannot expect a "serious" article about a serious career which isn't there. An article about a notable It girl is bound to be full of what Dr Johnson called "froth". Moonraker2 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've zero objection to the idea that someone can be notable for being an it girl. The only issue for me is the complete lack of significant in depth coverage of her as one. And as it turns out below, just giving a simple factually correct representation of what coverage that is out there is apparently a challenge. And even for it girls, there will be aspects of their lives that are 100% trivial. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)