Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding


 * 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   delete. merge isnt appropriate as this appears to be a content fork. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Page is an almost exact duplicate of the same material on the Chelsea Clinton page, and this article appears to have been created because the Marc Mezvinsky page is on the threshold of deletion. Everything that needs to be said about the wedding has been said on the Chelsea Clinton page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chelsea Clinton is a valid article, Marc Mezvinsky and Mark Mezvinsky are valid redirects (one as a misspelling). This article is not valid. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Agree with the nom, WP:CONTENTFORK classic WP:NOTNEWSWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Wikinews adequately covers the topic and is the only thing outside of a sentence or paragaph in Chealsea Clinton's article or Mezvinsky's if he ever runs for senate or something. 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable event with nationwide media coverage; this AfD is premature for an article that was stubbed out a mere 18hrs ago. The article could conceivably grow to contain details which would be WP:UNDUE within the biography of the bride. I'd be happy to revisit a merge, say, six months down the road, and if it's still a short stub, a merge would probably be fine. -- Kendrick7talk 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I cannot envision this article growing. There's nothing further to report about the wedding except unencyclopedic details such as the color of Hillary Cinton's gown or the brand of champagne served. These details belong in a gossip magazine not an encyclopedia. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bearian (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete agree completely with the nomination - regardless of the result of the Mezvinsky article this is redundant to the Chelsea article and integrated there with no problem. Hekerui (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Newsworthy doesn't equal notable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - wedding of the century, right? I would merge Marc Mezvinsky into this one until he gains his own notability, which may never come.
 * Please, the century is only a decade old. Let's wait another 90 years before we rush to judgement. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Keep The wedding itself was a notable event judging from the media coverage already. As more details are known more information will be added to the article. The event has an importance beyond its effect on the two people. Wolfview (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Media coverage, John Stewart spent last night lampooning the lack of information they were covering nothing. I hate to use the John Stewart as the basis for an argument here but we are arguing to keep this Article. there is no reason to keep it when it is already covered in the Chealsea Clinton's article. This is'nt something that blewup so big it needs is own article. Paragraph or phrase in her article would more then suffice. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we need the article. But it was more than just an event in two people's lives. Wolfview (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What was it then? It had absolutely no effect on the world that has been recorded. People are hungry for gossip about the rich and the media delivers. These sorts of news stories are not encyclopedic but simply pander to our desire to snoop into the lives of the others. I have yet to read any news story that indicates this wedding was an event of great moment. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the effect is to make the Clinton family look stupid and to show how shallow and celebrity obbsessed the American people are that would merit an article. Many much smaller events, like one episode of a TV show, have articles.Wolfview (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a society page. Deor (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, that's true, but we've got a handful of articles in Category:Royal weddings. It's odd for such a free-wheeling project to take the stance that only the royals are notable. In the U.S. this is about as close as we get. -- Kendrick7talk 02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference. The marriage of Charles and Diana, for example, was an event of great moment because Diana would assuredly become the mother of a future monarch that would likely influence the lives of millions. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think another difference between this wedding and the royal ones is that the royal ones are televised, making them public events. (At least, I'm under the impression they were all televised. If any of them were private affairs equivalent to Chelsea's except that one or more of the participants were royalty, I don't think they should have articles, either.) Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. This article obviously has valuable information, but I don't think it has enough to justify it being a separate article.  Eyu100(t 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if it grows, but as a stub it can be added to their individual biographies. To be own article it has to concentrate on details of wedding and the invitation list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:EVENT is the relevant policy. There's lots of coverage of the subject; not sure of the other criteria. &mdash;Ashley Y 10:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I just don't think there's much of importance to say about it. Yes, there's a ton of media coverage, but it seems primarily to be reporting details for the sake of reporting details, not because it actually matters in any way what color the centerpieces were or somesuch. It might somehow turn out to be a historically significant event, but right now it just looks like something that happened. Propaniac (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Smerge into Chelsea Clinton's page. I'm old enough to remember Tricia Nixon Cox's wedding, which happened while her dad was still President.  AFAIK we don't have a separate article on that wedding, which was subject to a flurry of coverage on a slow news day as well.  I'm as much in favor of the conversion of the U.S. government to a hereditary monarchy as anyone else, but until that happens, royal weddings are going to be state occasions tied to real, recognized dynasties, and Chelsea Clinton's wedding is not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We could join the Commonwealth of Nations. Wolfview (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - all the content of any value is already in the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete* Anything useful can be described in two lines on the CC article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree with Propaniac that a major difference between the Charles-Diana wedding and this wedding is that the Charles-Diana wedding was broadcast to millions of viewers throughout the world, while this wedding wasn't broadcast to anyone anywhere. Yes, some media did report on this wedding, but whatever there was for them to report (and there wasn't that much) can be covered in the Chelsea Clinton article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Who cares.  This is an event in the life of a first daughter; not a notable historical event Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chelsea Clinton article.  — fetch ·  comms   17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chelsea Clinton article. There is little here to justify a seperate page. 65.35.147.38 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, the Marc Mezvinsky article was deleted/redirected to Chelsea Clinton; that's where any relevant content should be merged. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Chelsea Clinton article. There is some good information, but this event doesn't warrant its own article. Airplaneman   ✈  19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why the word "banal" exists. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no new information. this is a pretty pathetic article with a single paragraph. she is not royalty. 184.96.118.189 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable event, lots of media attention. Everyking (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.