Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding dress of Kate Middleton


 * 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   speedy keep. I think it's time to close this under the snowball clause. I'm aware that it's only been open for about 36 hours. However, I think it's clear from a thorough read of the discussion that there is no realistic prospect of this article being deleted and so leaving it open would serve no purpose other than to encourage and fuel the drama. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete/Merge into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton - where all the text currently in the article exists already. Non-notable article incapable of being expanded beyond a stub. No other "Wedding dress of" pages exist for any other wedding throughout history (cf. Wedding dress of Princess Diana, Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth) - this is just a case of recentism, and Wikipedia is not a news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erolos (talk • contribs) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep there is already plenty of online coverage about this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of "online coverage" of every "Spring/Summer collection" that Alexander McQueen did every year until his death (featuring multiple outfits) - this doesn't mean they have nor deserve their own wikipedia articles. -Kez (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)'
 * Indeed. I think in WikiProject Fashion we (to the extent there is a "we") sort of decided that a notable designer's biannual collections are not inherently notable, and I don't see why that wouldn't extend to a garment. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep creating articles relating to the wedding dresses of Elizabeth II, Diana and Catherine Middleton could be of interest to a Wikipedian who edits British royal family, wedding or needlework articles. --Jennie--x (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge All it needs is a note and photo in Kates article not worthy of a whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per recentism, as per Jennie--x. As she expreses, there could indeed be a legitimate audience and articles for each dress mentioned in the nomination, but there isn't enough content yet to justify. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Recentism is not a valid argument here as it is clear that this will be a topic of continuing interest long into the future, albeit obviously at a lower level.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear to whom? In all the AfDs I've referenced below, that circular argument was used by all the keep voters. Time has proven otherwise. I don't see how there will be new articles about the dress six months or even a year from now. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a really clear keep for me. I'll explain why in a second, after examining the nom statement:
 * all the text currently in the article exists already That is because you gave the article 16 minutes to develop before swooping down on it and attempting to delete it without any consideration of how it would stifle the article's growth (see WP:CHANCE). Chzz had been planning to add a lot to the article, but due to your persistent attempts to delete it and lack of proper discussion with him a bout the matter, he no longer plans to have anything to do with it until the drama has died down in a few days time.
 * Non-notable article - This is blatantly incorrect, and the nom has completely failed to explain why it's non-notable. According to the notability guidelines, this topic can almost certainly be considered to be notable, because it has significant coverage from sources speaking solely about it and in detail; the sources are highly reliable, including big names like the BBC; and these sources are independent, secondary etc. etc. It's even been described as "the Wedding Dress of the Century."
 * ... incapable of being expanded beyond a stub - Again this is just not true, one only needs to read through the sources to see that there is so much to be said about this dress. There is no way that - if we stop with these insistent, yet irrational, deletion requests - the article will remain a stub, I guarantee that it will be expanded drastically. Simply because there is, as mentioned, a lot to say, and a lot who are interested in saying it. For example, the question of who was going to design the dress; the design itself; the work that went into creating it (which I hear from Chzz is very interesting, and could make a good DYK); the reaction to it, especially that online; the inspiration for dress, as well as anything it inspires itself, are all things which can be addressed (no pun intended ;D) by the article, and I'm sure there are a lot more obscure things to talk about too. Each of these things also show yet more notability, adding to my previous point.
 * No other "Wedding dress of" pages exist - This is something I talked about briefly at User talk:Trident13. It's a very peculiar argument to me, it seems to be saying Wikipedia should be defined by what... isn't in it. If we took that attitude then we would have zero articles, and no one would be able to create one because "we don't have any other articles like that." It's not a very robust argument in itself.
 * Wikipedia is not a news source - NOTNEWs is something I see (or rather used to see, when I actually spent more time at AfD) being used inappropriately as a reason for deletion a lot. My interpretation of NOTNEWs is that it's to prevent routine news coverage, and I don't really see how it can be interpreted any other way. In addition I don't see how this dress can be considered routine news. This topic clearly has lasting notability, and may well influence the future (see above about inspiration). As for recentism the same thing applies. I've not seen any comment from the nom explaining why these policies/guidelines (or in the case of recentism, essay) apply to this case.
 * Now, I've explained in quite a lot of detail why I don't think the deletion arguments apply, and have also touched upon why I think we should keep the article. But just to explain slightly further why I think the article is a good topic for the encyclopedia to cover: The wedding is going to be one of (if not the) event of the year in the U.K., and it also has received a lot of coverage in other countries. The dress was one of the central points in the coverage, and will also be remembered as one of the central points of the event. It is important for us to cover such large events and the central points of them, because they can have such a large effect on the future - and indeed on the present, as this clearly has had. In addition most of the points I noted above about the deletion argument being flawed are equally reasons for keeping the article. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit, in regard to the two merge !votes above, please address the topic rather than the content, as the only reason for such a small amount of content is the AfD itself, and the lack of time for development (as I've mentioned above). There is however a lot of development which can be done, and this page can be expanded many times over - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit 2, to future !voters, please feel free to address my points, rather than ignoring them, thanks :) - Kingpin13 (talk)


 * Comment Might I suggest we move the article to Talk:Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton/Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, and close this discussion? That new location will preserve the editing history, while allowing to those wishing for this article to exist (if it can prove itself) to contribute? Once the article is fully developed, we can have a further discussion then. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would we need to do that, it's generally considered fine to build articles in the mainspace, it's part of the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia. Surely if the topic is good it should have a page so that people can contribute to it? It's the whole point of having "stub" articles - yes, they're not perfect and can use work, but people don't generally write articles in one edit. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it necessary, it's just in an attempt to please the deletionists. Perhaps if the article exists as is, so it can be developed, but it wasn't so prominently linked in the main article? Would you revoke your nomination then, Erolos? --  Zanimum (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. LessHeard navU (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)  !vote by blocked troll struck. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific please? Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton. Brand meister  t   14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Brandmeister :), could you explain why you think this is necessary please? Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an anti-monarchist, gay or something like that, but the article is too short for a standalone one, while the wedding is not that big, at least currently. If more important details become available, the split would be reasonable, but not currently imho. Brand meister  t   19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with Erolos that the fact that there are no other wedding dress articles is a telling one. At some point we need to say as a community where we draw the line, and this garment - and it's just a few hours old in the public consciousness - has not been given the time to establish itself to the degree that it needs an article. I am very uneasy at news-driven articles, this is not the Wikipedia way of doing things. What's the harm in putting the info somewhere else, inserting some cross references for the moment, and giving it time. If in due course it could become part of a series about notable wedding dresses, fine.Asnac (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that a telling fact? Have you read my comment above about that? Also, this is not "a few hours old in the public consciousness," and I have to wonder where you got that idea from. People have been speculating over and discussing the dress for much longer than that, which it doesn't take much research to find out, so I have to wonder what research you have done. The same kind of harm that would result in merging every article into one massive page - sometimes to properly grow and flourish an article needs it's own page. And that is the case here, there is a lot more to say here than can be said in a sub-section of the wedding article. Maybe because there is no way to make a "series about notable wedding dresses" when every time you create the first one it gets hauled over to AfD because there are "no other wedding dress articles"? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton where the wedding cake and wedding ring can be found. I know WP:BLP1E is for people notable for only one event, but I think it suits here as well. My only concern is WP:BIGEVENT which states "others (events) generate such mainstream coverage that the key people, or companies, or products, or places, or other names become separately notable, as almost household names for the general public.". However, it also states "some highly publicized events have made the key participants instantly notable, due to having a major role or impact in the event." I'm yet to see the major role or impact of the wedding dress alone to this wedding. Nimuaq (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Wedding dress of..." as an article in an encyclopaedia? Exactly the sort of thing that made me all but quit as an active user on this project.--Kalsermar (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you, you think that it's not possible for a garment/article of clothing to be an encyclopedic topic? Do you think you could expand on that? Thanks for your time. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the AfD arguments make sense. The dress has been extensively discussed in reliable sources. A lot of the argument seems to boil down to "I don't think this ought to be notable." But notability isn't some kind of reward Wikipedia gives to its subjects. It's an objective determination. We should give this article time to evolve. If it's still a stub in a few weeks, then deleting would make sense. Binarybits (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how NOTNEWS applies? Is the royal wedding and the events which go with it considered routine news reporting now? - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Do you still need additional explanation? Many things that are "newsworthy" and get multiple instances of news coverage as part of a major event are not encyclopedic. The wedding itself is encyclopedic, since it has political and dynastic implications. The dress itself does not. Can you tell the difference between the enduring importance of the wedding and the lesser importance of the wedding dress, or the uniform the groom wore, or the three vintage airplanes which flew overhead, all of which also got multiple instances of press coverage? Should the Royal Wedding Cake which also got lots of news coverage, have its own article? The Royal Luncheon Menu also got lots of instances of news coverage. Many minor aspects of a major event get incidental spinoff news coverage, but are better mentioned in the article about the main event. They do not need coverage in the main article which rambles on and on so as to have undue weight, either. See also News articles, an essay reflecting the views of a number of editors that things in the news are not necessarily encyclopedic.  Edison (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep basically per what Kingpin said. It is clearly notable and has a lot of coverage in reliable online sources, and I'm ready to bet that there will be much more coverage on it. Perhaps we should give this article a chance to improve rather than attempting to delete it? I don't see how NOTNEWS is applicable here: does the article cover a news story? I disagree with the statement that the article cannot be expanded beyond a stub; perhaps we could give the community a fair chance to expand it? I'm quite sure that there will be enough information to expand the article considering the number of sources covering it. I have rarely seen an FA being written in a single day and I'm sure others will agree on this point at least. The argument that there is no article about a wedding dress is very surprising to be honest; I always thought that there would be a first for everything! If we had followed this rule, then the number of articles would have been 0, not . Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've seen some pretty retarded articles around here over the years, from Michelle Obama's arms to Yul Brynner's bald pate, but this tripe gives them a run for their money. Simply being "in the news" is not the only criteria to create a wikipedia article, that is why we have safeguards such as WP:NOTNEWS.  A notable event of this magnitude is bound to have many side stories of quirky/irrelevant interest as the 24/7 drive-by media begins to run out of things to talk about and they cast about for some filler.  This reminds me of every Thanksgiving when we get a full rundown...in many, many media outlets...of what is on the White House dinner table.  Reliably sourced?  Sure.  Encyclopedic?  Not so much.  Mention it in the main article, but there's no call to devote encyclopedia treatment to a flippin dress. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly abundantly notable, and quite ridiculous to claim otherwise.  Chzz  ► 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Kingpin's arguments are persuasive for me. The article about the wedding is already a long one and even after further editing will remain so. The sort of article that I think might develop on the dress might not even fit well into there. Let's see. As a man I have to admit that Wikipedia's coverage of topics like women's clothing is pitifully inadequate in comparison to what would be described as boy's toys, sport and so forth (as well as less gendered areas such as popular music or television characters). Having had to mug up on a particular area of historical costume I have to say that quite a lot of explanation is needed before I grasp the point whilst a simple description passes me by, and that is what lifts an article into the encyclopedic. To those who say I just don't get it I'm afraid that is rather the point. --AJHingston (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The irony of this article is that the main wedding article already has more written about the dress, and the truth is, there is not much more that needs to be written.  There is nothing to merge, and no reason for a standalone article to exist. Resolute 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the article has been expanded in the last few minutes. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Resolute above. I was editing the wedding article during the event, since the dress section needed reformatting, and I don't see how this needs its own article. So it gets lots of hits? So does anything recent. Ask yourself, what will Wikipedia need to say about her dress a year from now? When William's parents were married certainly there would have been as much to say. But all we have thirty years later is one short graf. I suggest we can have a simple section in this article, to cover the dress, Princess Beatrice's hat, William's outfit and anything else sartorially of note from today's festivities. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have just one paragraph, simply because no one has gotten around to writing an article about Diana's dress. The fact that it's still remembered, referenced, and relevant just proves that it too is a viable topic. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I eagerly await the article Wedding dress of Katie Price, a complementary piece about the enormous influence of this wedding dress on the British national consciousness. -Kez (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 10+ years that Wikipedia has been around, there's been ample opportunity to write a standalone article on Diana's wedding dress, or at least expand the coverage we have in the article. Yet no one's done it. Perhaps there's a reason better than "we never got around to it"? Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge - I'd accept coverage Diana's wedding dress too. They have enough sources... This is notable for British fashion as one BBC commentator pointed out earlier. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This debate will have encouraged editors to look at how other wedding dresses are covered and probably concluded that there is very little about them. Queen Victoria's wedding, including her dress, gets scant attention; rather more interest is shown in her wedding night. Yet it is acknowledged as marking an important point in the development of wedding ritual. I would not make the same claim for this, but I still do not think that the article on the wedding itself offers scope for the article that is developing on this topic. --AJHingston (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All I know is that the fashion guru on the BBC said the dress was a monumental moment in British fashion history...♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, almost all Western wedding dresses will be influenced by this one, for quite a while, according to various sources I've started quoting in the article. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, I don't think anyone here's making the argument that the dress is unworthy of any mention on Wikipedia at all as many of the keep votes are imputing in a too-transparent effort to manipulate the delete proponents into getting all defensive. Let us all remember that, at core, any deletion discussion is really about whether the subject in question deserves a standalone article. The dress can be discussed in not only the wedding article but the Sarah Burton article. Or, perhaps, a list article on notable wedding dresses, a suggestion I may elaborate on later. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As much as I absolutely don't care about it, I'm not about to impose how I feel about what is important and what isn't on others. Media attention on the dress has been intense (baffling to me), therefore it should count as notable. As long as the article is well-written, well-sourced, and there are people who want to know about it, why not? - Yk (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * have the decency to keep her clothes. So the folk on the BBC spoke highly of Kate's dress. Over on CTV they could not shut up about it and for the first two hours it was mostly about the anticipation of what her dress would be like and why it was expected to be from Alexander McQueen. Her dress is not just influential in the UK but in Canada too. I do believe that Daniel there makes the perfect reason to not remove her dress from the wonderful world of Wikipedia because all that would remain is a pitiful passing mention of one of the most influential fashion creations of a generation. Just because her late mother-in-law's dress is relegated to the back of the closet is no reason to do so again. There is something about it being a bad argument to do things because 'other stuff exists' and well if those who apply that have integrity they would agree that it is bad to refuse things because 'other stuff doesn't exist'. I watched a little of the coverage on Global and just happened to tune in to a discussion about the dresses of Kate & Diana. Also, the reasons given in the unsigned nomination are at best tossing whatever seems remotely possible out there and seeing who bites on it. When looking past the key words that trigger almost inherent responses from some people one finds it is just bitterness, possibly born of the declined CSD tagging earlier in the day. "VfD completely non-notable unexpandable stub article". A score and a half edits and 7 hours later shows the article is indeed expandable and as a result i question the accuracy of all claims from the one making this nomination.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the single graf in the original Royal Wedding article is limiting. Certainly that could be expanded. I'm just pointing out that time gives you considerable perspective. Speaking of wedding dresses, let me give you an example. Seven years ago there was this guy in Seattle who, after getting divorced, found his ex-wife had left behind her wedding dress. He had originally planned to burn it, but his sister talked him out of it. So, he put up this ad on eBay to sell it, posing for photos of him wearing the dress. The hits on the page mounted, it became an Internet phenomenon that people linked to, emailed to huge cc lists and such. It got news coverage. It got more than two non-trivial mentions in reliable independent third-party sources. Eventually, Wedding Dress Guy set up his own website.  Snopes has a page on him. But we never even started one. He's not even listed here. I'm not sure how many people remembered him before I brought this old story up. And that's why we have the recentism page.  Now, I allow that Kate Middleton's wedding dress will be longer remembered than Wedding Dress Guy's. But the wedding is not going to be the single defining event of her life (in fact, I think that treating it as if it were, in particular by devoting an article to her dress, is somewhat sexist), anymore than Diana's was (and face it, we don't have an article on the Up Yours dress, so who are we to talk about not having an article about her wedding dress?)). Eventually there will be other articles to write concerning Kate Middleton, most likely about further extensions of the Windsor line, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the loudest keep voices today are a little "OK, you had a point" by then (Because I've been there). Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the proper question is whether it should be merged, not whether it should be deleted. Brand meister  t   20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The wedding dress was about as significant as the wedding itself! There's enough content and I'm sure more information will come in the future. I'd almost definitely keep it. StephenBHedges (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't give a monkey's about a frock, but I can recognise when other people do. Besides which, 3rd party dress-specific coverage is enormous. Big trout to the nom. 8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I find this nomination bizarre to say the least, a clearly notable topic with a vast quantity of third party coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to the main article on the wedding per WP:NOTNEWS. High profile events like this one will necessarily result in extensive news coverage of details. This doesn't mean those details are encyclopedic, as they don't have any long term notability. What needs to be said about the dress can be said in the main article on the wedding. Hut 8.5 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly pro-monarchist, personally, and neither am I interested in wedding dresses. But, this dress is the fashion equivalent of a major work of art.  I can see the argument that doesn't have the historic aspects of the Sword of Mercy or the Koh-i-Noor, but things don't have to be historic to be notable.  They just have to generate coverage in reliable sources, and this dress has generated a really enormous amount of coverage. The article should probably be renamed, though.  She's not Kate Middleton any more...— S Marshall  T/C 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per all of the above. I have to say thought that I think this is all a bit too sudden; the article was only created 11 hours ago. We should give it time to develop before making a final decision. CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:NOTE, this topic is notable, since it "has received  "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  There is too much information here to merge it into the other articles (and it will get longer), although they can and do summarize it.  This seems to be using WP:summary style the way Wikipedia is intended to be used.  Further, this topic is appropriate for coverage in this encyclopedia because the dress has had an impact on the fashion industry and is the subject of much analysis and commentary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As a new (and therefore inexperienced) contributor I'm not going to express an opinion (I can see both points of view and find the discussion interesting). Rather it seems to me that there might be another option: create a new article entitled "Notable wedding dresses" or "Wedding dresses of celebrities and notable persons" or some such, which this content would form a part of. That would contextualise what could otherwise be criticised as one-off, recentist, marginal etc. while perhaps giving a more focussed and proportional option than an entire series of separate articles on separate dresses. Thoughts anyone? Counterbalanced (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your suggestion is well founded. Many !voters here are quite enthralled by the Royal Wedding and full of recentism. A little Google News Archive searching would establish that the wedding dresses of many princesses and brides of princes, as well as daughters of US Presidents, got just as much newspaper coverage back in the day. Take the wedding dresses of Luci Johnson, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, or that of Alice Roosevelt, for instance. This one is not at all remarkable in the number of news articles. It is just the one "in the news," right now. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. Edison (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic clearly has enormous notability and so our editing policy is to keep this material. Note also the Foundation's concern that there is insufficient participation by women in Wikipedia.  We have here a computer gamer - creator of articles such as List of Dungeons & Dragons deities - trying to delete a fashion article which is of great interest to millions of women.  This seems to be a case of improper bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I wrote those articles when I was 14 and am in no way, almost 7 years later "a computer gamer," additionally, I am now a feminist academic. But my personal life shouldn't be the thing under discussion here at all. Way to make tone-lowering assumptions extraneous to the debate. -Kez (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ... my ... God! I just knew someone was going to try to play this card; I didn't expect they would do it from the bottom of the deck. First off, this is coming from a user who seems to be, as far as I can tell, male. OK, not fatal to the argument in and of itself. But then to say it in such a clichéd manner: "... of great interest to millions of women." Leaving aside the fact tag I added, I can't help but be reminded of that episode of the original version of The Office where Ricky Gervais wants the unseen unflatteringly Photoshopped image of that everyone's gotten forwarded around deleted because "it insults women". And as I said in a parenthetical above, is it not arguably just as sexist to assume that deleting an article like this would alienate potential female editors? On the gendergap mailing list a couple of months ago, I brought up the minimal participation in WP:FASH as a symptom of our gender inequity, citing a diff in which a female editor had made a similar complaint about an article she was trying to keep from deletion. In later responses on the same and other threads, several female editors made it quite clear without referencing my post directly that they resented the insinuation that they in particular, or women in general, would flock to editing Wikipedia in droves if we just let them write more articles about make-up tips and such. Fine. I stood rebuked. I note also that the only editor whom I know to be female to have contributed to this discussion has not resorted to this sort of argument.  It crosses the line from clumsy to insulting with its last bit. First, I seem to have missed the deletion criterion where it says the other articles created by the nominator are in any way relevant to the AfD at hand. Second, as I have learned on further reflection on another incident that arose from the gendergap list, you're not going to solve that problem by singling people out and stereotyping them. Your last sentence, with an explicit mention of D&D, amounts to little more than taunting "Geekboy! See you in the locker room with the tape! I get more chicks than you!" Did you stop to think before you typed that that behavior might be just as alienating to prospective editors? It is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian, and you owe the nominator an apology whether he's asked for one or not. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the observations of Colonel Warden, above.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I include you as the target of my response as well. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The dress has made news.1 Portillo (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge. The one article on the wedding is enough. Yes, the wedding is notable but we don't need to be splitting aspects off into separate articles such as the dress. This article and issue applies in ways to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The dress is of significance to both fashion and the textile arts.  - PKM (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The world will little note nor long remember the dress, but it will always remember the canceled TV shows that seem to have inspired more articles than the numer of episodes the shows themselves had. And I apologize for referencing The Orator and then getting so clumsy with my syntax. Cardiffman (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep : Has to be a keep, clearly notable, the only other alternative is merge, but give the size of Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton (at the time of posting this ~80k) and consulting WP:SIZERULE it would require hefty editing down or would just end up being split back off again. As for claims of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS; on more than one occasion on the telecast did observers say that the dress will shape wedding dresses for the years to come, so lets review this in 1 years time. Mtking (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:recentism warns against creating articles which do not have 'long-term, historical view'. Given that fragments of articles worn by the British Royal family are still preserved, the dresses of Diana, Princess of Wales were the subject of their own exhibition and that the dress worn by Catherine Middleton is of equal historical significance I'd say this article was well worth keeping. As an aside I'd also guess that if the internet had been up and running when Diana or The Queen married that there would be articles on their dresses too.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dress already has nothing to do with the wedding itself.  One time dress for one day wedding.  But it is so strong trend setter that it will dictate girlie's wishes for years.  Every bride wants to have awesome dress, preferably princess' one.  Kudos to Burton. --Petar Petrov (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Many of the comments that have been posted already just seem to be trying to make notability assumptions and judgements about something related to a current event that happened less than 24 hours ago. That is not sufficient time. IMO. I suggest that this discussion be tabled and closed to a Keep, and as per WP:RECENT we wait until a later date when the editing on all these articles about the wedding have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge Although I think that Edison is right when mentioning other wedding gowns of prominent brides that changed fashion history (and what about Grace Kelly's wedding gown?), I also believe that these dresses -- not just the Duchess of Cambridge's -- deserve at least an article with photograph to show the dress and bride. If that is not the consensus, then expand and merge. A single paragraph in the main wedding article is not enough. Diamantina (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment a quick decision would be very helpful, yes - because, I have nominated it for "Did you know..." and lots of details appear in every single major UK newspaper this morning (and presumably, based on what Google shows me, all over the world) - so a rapid DYK would help build it and potentially encourage new editors.  Chzz  ► 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do wish people would stop suggesting 'merge'. Have a look on Google; there are entire articles about the dress, in several countries. There are already enough RS to write an entire book about it - and that's just a few hours after the event.  Chzz  ► 07:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot argue with the quantity of RS, but quality is an entire different matter. Just because you can include anything and everything that has been written about the event does not necessarily mean you could write a good article about it, or completely follow either the good article or featured article criteria, especially the "well-written" or "clear and concise" guidelines. One or two sections that purely consists of quotes without providing prose and historical context could be cleaned up or removed IMO. As it currently stands, the second half of the article is becoming a list of quotes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Give an article a chance. If I wasn't farting around here in AfD, I'd have more time to develop it. There's plenty of quality RS out there - Times, Telegraph, New York Times, etc. etc. - as I keep pointing out, there are quite literally tens of thousands of RS. Plus, if it wasn't going through AfD, I'd be pushing for DYK as soon as possible - because, right now, millions of Brits (and I assume millions more around the world) are reading all about this dress in our morning papers. Sadly, this AfD holds that back, preventing the huge potential here for attracting new users to expand it.  Chzz  ► 09:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the wedding dress has been the subject of much discussion on Italian talk shows this morning. The sources provided establish notability. I'd say it's a definite keep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - totally absurd article. Snap out of the hypnotism. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to the IP, you have not given any reasons why the article is absurd. Just your personal opinion will not suffice here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - I agree. At least merge the whole article with the Wedding article. Single wedding dress is not worth it to be a separate article. There is nothing to talk about. Dress is made, he/she made it, people thought nice/bad. That is it. Not a lot of content. Merge the whole content to the "wedding of kate middleton and william." Don't take nothing out. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - dress has generated quite a lot of discussion around the world (WP:N), and I'm sure this could probably end up as quite a good article given the coverage and wealth of references. The main wedding article is already quite long, so I don't see the harm this article can do. Once the coverage has died down we can see if it deserves to stay then. Bob talk 08:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - how pathetically stupid is this? And how pathetically stupid will WP look if we're the only people who don't think the dress is a 'notable subject'?  And how much more sensible to give it an article of its own than to make the Wedding article clunkily long by having all the dress reference in that?  The wedding is not the dress, and the dress is not the wedding.  And yes, articles could (and probably should) be done on other 'notable' Royal Wedding dresses - the Queen's, Diana's and so on.  Pesky  ( talk ) 08:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I hope someone will create lots of articles about lots of famous dresses. I believe that our systemic bias caused by being a predominantly male geek community is worth some reflection in this context.  Consider Category:Linux distribution stubs - we have nearly 90 articles about Linux distrubtions, counting only the stubs.  With the major distros included, we're well over a hundred.  One hundred different Linux distributions.  One hundred.  I think we can have an article about this dress.  We should have articles about one hundred famous dresses.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think you have something there, I think royal dresses certainly cut the mustard in terms of sources. I actually think it is a very poorly developed part of wikipedia and we could easily have articles for notable individual famous dresses and things like that. Obviously a line has to be drawn with what is included, which is dictated by sources which exist,. I think I'll start the Wedding dress of Princess Diana... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really distressing to see so many Wikipedians, in the name of redressing gender imbalance (a phenomenon we have only begun to analyze, to the point that we are far short of being able to state so categorically that not having separate articles on individual garments is directly contributory to the problem), indulge themselves in all this counter-stereotyping and otherwise engaging in the sort of behavior which makes editors quit. It's doubly distressing to see this from Wikipedia's founder. And it is an, ahem, apples and oranges comparison and the most vulgar logical fallacy to suggest that 100 Linux distros = 100 dresses. As I noted below, a wedding dress is a garment intended to be worn once by a single individual as part of an event which may or may not be notable. It can be, and in this case certainly is, an aspect of an event's notability. But it is notable for being part of that event, not in itself. I'm sure there were other marriages in the world, or even Britain, yesterday. Would the dress have been notable if it was worn by Sue Higginsbotham on her way to the chapel at St.-Weston's-on-the-Avon?  We do not have, and did not have until some editors decided to make a point re this AfD, articles on other dresses worn to notable weddings. As I noted below we do not have articles on other dresses worn once by a single person (I say this to include that pink dress Gwyneth Paltrow wore to the Oscars that one year, it or a copy of which was then worn by one of the creators of South Park to next year's ceremony), no matter how much contemporaneous news coverage they got, whether Lizzy Gardiner's credit-card dress, that Bob Mackie dress worn by Cher to the Oscars in the early 1980s, or Lady Gaga's raw-steak dress. Maybe we could, but I'm not sure they wouldn't be bundled into list articles eventually.  And I really see this idea that keeping this article does something to remedy the gender imbalance here to be facile at best and insulting at worst, as I have explained below. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that article. Incidentally, it does create a naming question - Diana's dress is named by her married title, instead of "Lady Diana Spencer", so what should this be - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, or Kate/Catherine Middleton? Also, can I propose that we conclude this discussion fairly soon, as it probably doesn't reflect very well on Wikipedia to have the deletion notice stuck on it when so many people are probably looking at the page. Bob talk 09:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer would be right I think. OK I'll move it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - To me, if a subject is covered by sufficiant notable sources and meets WP:GNG then theres nothing wrong with having a page on it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since some of us with lots of experience can see that this will eventually wind up being merged back into the article anyway, all we're asking is that we spare ourselves the additional work (fully aware of the irony of this with all the effort being devoted to this AfD.) Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bring it on I say, Wedding dress of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth.. Plenty of sources for Coronation gown of Elizabeth II. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the Victoria and Albert Museum, not to mention the Times Digital Archive, can provide RS on many, many other examples of 'notable Royal attire' - wedding and coronation dresses of Queen Victoria - and how many others? Excellent opportunity for a whole range of similar articles.  Pesky  ( talk ) 12:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Famous dress. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now at least - and I'll point out once again that there is a third, arguably compromise, option: merge into a new Famous wedding dresses article (mind you, I guess that could easily get very image-heavy and therefore too large). (BTW I agree 100% that if we do have individual articles then they should be under maiden name, though obviously cross-referenced.) Counterbalanced (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC) - Edit: I'd also quite strongly vote for "Catherine" in the title rather than "Kate", at the very least for consistency with the main wedding page (though obviously cross-referenced from the version with "Kate"). Counterbalanced (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Request per WP:SNOW this is a polite request not to waste everyone's time. There is, now, no realistic chance of this AfD resulting in deletion; especially in consideration of WP:HEY. I believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to allow this to appear on DYK as soon as possible, to encourage further development. Therefore, I am kindly asking if this could be closed early. Thanks to all who participated (oppose and support alike) - I mean that; input is great; AfD only fails when we don't get input. I just hope, now, we've demonstrated notability, and we can all get on with editing it, instead of further debate here (which, at this stage, I really think is clearly pointless).  Chzz  ► 11:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Indications (from reliable sources) are that the dress will have lasting coverage (also see Category:Royal wedding dresses). At this point in time, how ca we know if the topic won't having lasting notability (although the indications are that it will). In any case, this can be revisited in a few months, in the unlikely event that the coverage isn't lasting. I second Chzz's call for a SNOW keep closure. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, for Heaven's sake SNOW-keep this! Anyone clicking on the AfD link from that page is immediately going to see how bl**dy stupid this entire discussion is! It this the 'face of Wikipedia' that we really, truly want people to be seeing? Pesky  ( talk ) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and I have just this moment noticed that according to the nominator's user page, they self-identify as .... an inclusionist! Seriously?  Pesky  ( talk ) 12:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your continued personal attacks have been noted. -Kez (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is seriously not intended as any kind of 'personal attack' - I just find it honestly completely incomprehensible that an inclusionist should nominate this for deletion. A deletionist - yes, that I might be able to understand.  Pesky  ( talk ) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be so disingenuous; you just called me stupid on my talk page. How is that not personal? -Kez (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't. Quite. And it wasn't an 'attack', either. But I do seriously think your wisest course of action would have been to withdraw the nomination very quickly.  Pesky  ( talk ) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So, in other words, it's all Kez's fault that people are attacking him? Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, Daniel. Did you really interpret it that way? Pesky  ( talk ) 15:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The hilarious thing is that somebody once tried to delete the article about Kate Middleton itself!!!]♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should have a separate category for 'Articles nominated for deletion by inclusionists'? Pesky  ( talk ) 12:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That AfD was six years ago, when she was just another girlfriend. It was kept at the time, but I don't see that nomination as somehow evincing bad faith. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Honestly, this isn't notable? There are dozens of mentions about it all over the net. Almost every newspaper which reported on the wedding has something in it about the dress. How is this not notable? Sources like BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, etc. etc. have mentions about the dress. OK, let's look at it from this perspective. We are telling some article creators (in AFC cases, for example) that their article subjects are not notable enough for an article because there are no reliable sources for them. How are you going to explain why a topic, which has plenty of reliable sources, is not notable? Bejinhan   talks   12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of reliable-source coverage of all sorts of transitory Internet memes and viral videos at the time they were new. We started articles about them. AfDs were started almost immediately thereafter. The keep voters (usually newer users; I should know as I was sometimes one of those myself) pointed to the existence of multiple sources with non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. The delete voters asked whether we were so sure these things would be so interesting a year from now. At first we often won keeps outright or through "no consensus". But after a while, cooler heads prevailed and articles like Dog poop girl and Brian Chase (hoaxer) were merged back in and redirected to the articles about the larger news event. I fail to see why we have any expectations of anything turning out differently here. As one of the early members of WikiProject Fashion, I totally agree with you about our lack of coverage in that area. However, I do not believe it means we automatically need articles about individual garments to be worn a single time by one individual. Did we have an article about Lady Gaga's raw-steak dress? Lizzy Gardiner's American-Express-gold-card dress (Those of you claiming this is an instance of systemic bias might want to take note of the fact that we have no article about Ms. Gardiner herself, even though she won an Oscar, which makes her indisputably notable).  We could certainly have a list article about notable wedding dresses. We could certainly mention the dress in an expansion to wedding dress. But I don't see why it automatically deserves its own article just because there's lots of news coverage. There's been a fair amount of coverage of the cake, too. Yet no one's started an article about it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody seriously needs to Snow keep this asap. It doesn't that a chance in being deleted..I've created Category:British royal attire, probably one could write about those posh uniforms the royal males wear from time to time too, especially going back in time.. I'm sure the museums in London and books have coverage of them..♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources. What this debate has usefully demonstrated is that Wikipedia has been seriously lacking in coverage of matters of costume. It is an enormous topic with museums devoted to it and a great many books. Topics such as court dress in individual countries and periods require articles in themselves. And there has been much on the BBC comparing this dress with Grace Kelly's, but you would look in vain in Wikipedia for any enlightenment on that. If any evidence were needed of the bias in Wikipedia coverage and participation it is here. --AJHingston (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed "Royal tailory" is a vastly underdeveloped topic and one with a lot of information available on. If you broaden the scope and go back further in time or venture into other countries then it becomes vast. I for one remember being in a museum in Bangkok and seeing detailed displays about items of clothing worn by the Thai royal family, special silks and weaving and all that. Its not just British royal family.. At the very least we should have overviews of royal/court dress for every country... Can I interest anybody in venturing into this? Wedding dress of Princess Alexandra coming... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "If any evidence were needed of the bias in Wikipedia coverage and participation it is here." See my comments above regarding this specious argument. Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable dress with plenty of reliable sources. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to related wedding article. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have no interest in becoming embroiled in this discussion - there are much more important things in life than Wikipedia and certainly much more important things than royal dresses; all I did was nominate what I thought was a ridiculous article for deletion, as per admin suggestion. Clearly, I am not alone in the opinion that this is not notable enough a subject for Wikipedia (Google not being the authority on notability), although the majority support a Keep. That's fine - I'm glad that consensus is being reached, even if I don't agree with it. I can even appreciate some of the arguments - i.e. that Wikipedia's traditional bias against fashion as a credible topic is perhaps not neutral (AJHingston), and am interested to see that because of this discussion articles for other royal dresses have now been created (thereby demonstrating that my point about there being no other such articles was valid when I nominated it).
 * This is the last thing I will say on the matter, as I have much better things to be doing with my time. But I want to make three points:
 * 1) Is this dress more notable a garment than Prince William's suit? If so, why?
 * 2) Are royal dresses intrinsically more notable than other celebrity wedding dresses observed by the fashion media? If so, why? It smacks of classism to me, hence my point about the Wedding dress of Katie Price.
 * 3) I was glad to see that Daniel Case was injecting some sanity into the proceedings, since a small minority of the Keep users have been incredibly vitriolic and over-invested. I didn't nominate the article out of maliciousness, I was just following a process laid out by Wikipedia. Yet some of the responses have been calling the nomination - me as nominator, and anyone who agrees with me - "stupid" or implying that. I couldn't believe that Pesky and Colonel Warden decided to publicly mock me by using my user page as a weapon against the nomination. If that's the standard of these debates then I can appreciate that after 6 years on Wikipedia (the articles on D&D and my user page itself, should anyone be at all interested, written originally when Wikipedia was 3 years old and had NONE of the regulations it does now, and I myself was FOURTEEN - so congrats, you successfully poked fun at a teenager's interests - you must feel so big) there is little reason for me to continue editing.

-Kez (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kez, I think it's really the apparent inconsistency of your approach that has people drawing the comparisons here. And you must remember that nobody knows/knew how old you are/were unless/until you say so.  Surely you can see the inconsistencies, though?  And it really is hard to see how 'The Dress' is less notable than the comparison drawn (and therefore either CSD or AfD material), and surely (again) you must see that it does seem just a bit strange for an inclusionist to suggest this (as opposed to various others) for deletion?  Pesky  ( talk ) 15:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really going to have to be the last thing I say on the matter: first, I'm in my 20s now, so let's not make my age an issue - the point was (and those comments were aimed more at Colonel Warden than you) that the articles referred to - and my user page label of "inclusionist" were SIX YEARS OLD so of course there was an "inconsistency" in my approach - 6 years is a long time! But this is a digression about me, which leads to the second matter: my point was that my user page/personal history bears no relation on THIS DEBATE - even if I had "I LOATHE WEDDING DRESSES" in big letters on my user page, the AfD discussion is not about the nominator (nor anyone else's) bias (everyone has one), but about the matter at hand - whether the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and why. -Kez (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nono, I'm sure you nominated it in good faith. The topic does initially seem one to scoff at, because, well its a wedding dress!! I personally don't anything against articles on individual pieces of clothing which are widely covered in sources and books. Of course it would be ridiculous to have an article on every dress or wedding dress worn by a celebrity but some are likely notable at least.. Grace Kelly's is. As for individual famous celebrity dresses, one thinks of Liz Hurley's famous dress or eh Lady Gaga's meat costume LOL... Maybe Liz Hurley's dress is notable, dunno, sources would dictate that. But royal wedding dresses are certainly higher status than celebrity.. Royal dresses and items of attire which are found in royal and national museums and are covered in detail in multiple credible sources are the criteria for notability in this subject I think, which immediately rules out the vast majority of celebrity dresses...♦  Dr. Blofeld  14:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince William's suit was the full dress uniform of the Irish Guards. The uniform choice (he had multiple options) is discussed in the main wedding article, but further at Irish Guards. As for notability, Katie Price is not in waiting to become the consort to a head of state, her wedding was not broadcast (domestically, let alone internationally), and it is unlikely to become an artifact at a British museum. This is only speculation, as I haven't searched for articles about Ms. Price's dress, but I doubt it was said to influence Western wedding wear for the next few years. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But just how will Kate's dress "influence Western wedding wear for the next few years"? My wife commented when we all finally saw it that it was an excellent dress for her body type, that she knew Kate would choose a neckline like that and that it was nice to see long sleeves were back (although given the weather, I can't blame her). Certainly a lot of other women will Say Yes to A Similar Dress. But is that just because of who wore it and to what wedding, or because of the dress itself? None of its design elements are new to wedding dresses. They were certainly well-chosen, and the dress itself was as high-end as you can get, but the dress design was not some sort of groundbreaking advance in wedding dresses (As if at this point there could be, but anything's possible). Simply because a lot of hyperbole-plagued commentators say so does not make it so (I remember reading some online commentary once about a similar BBC sports announcer who said, before the start of one particularly important but not final soccer match, that "matches don't come much bigger than an FA Cup quarterfinal" ... well, I can think of at least three other matches that do. I suggest we take these comments in that spirit). As for your other arguments, they are solid for the notability of the wedding itself, which is not in doubt here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding dress of Princess Alexandra of Denmark looks pretty encyclopedic to me. There is a line to be drawn I think. Which wedding are we talking about now with Jordan LOL. I think Peter Andre's dodgy hair do in the first one is more worthy of coverage!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This particular dress has recieved significant and in depth coverage in serious, respected, sources, extending to its long term and cultural impact. The ommission of other such articles in Wikipedia, or certain people's personal dislike of dresses being treated as a non-trivial topic, are frankly not factors at all in this case. Less important, but worth noting, the level of less serious coverage of this particular dress is astronomical, way beyond any of the supposed other examples of non-notability. Ironically, had this Afd not been kicked off leading to massive improvements to what was initially just a cut and paste stub, it's likely it could have been quietly merged some time down the line. Ho hum. And no, I do not consider this vote an endorsement of the 'all royal wedding dresses are automatically notable' viewpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And it probably eventually will be merged into the main article (as we eventually did with Daniel Brandt after over a dozen AfDs, although those circumstances were very, very different, which is why I think this AfD is a grand waste of time because we'll do it anyway, as we have done with so many other such articles in the past. And I do consider the omission of other such articles very telling, given the amount of time and editors who could have done something about it. Also, as I've noted, if this is about remedying gender bias, there are more obvious but less glamorous places to start. ~


 * Keep. See Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer Pandawelch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.211.48 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That article, as noted above, was started in response to comments I and others made above during this AfD, an action which IMO is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Daniel, although I disagree with you and have voted keep, a lot of what you have said in this AfD has been sensible. Therefore it was quite surprising to see you accuse Dr. Blofeld of violating WP:POINT when he has actually gone to the effort of creating an article that clearly passes the GNG. I urge you to retract your comment. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I think what the IP is trying to say is that, if Diana's dress has had significant and lasting coverage, then there is no reason to assume that Kate's wouldn't (especially considering the coverage it's already received). Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also disagree, the topic of that article is highly notable as well. The creation of this article has clearly given editors the idea to create similar ones on other notable topics, but there's nothing wrong with that. Clearly 'other similar articles exist' is a poor argument in this particular case, but that's another point.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe it was simply a this subject is clearly notable and this is a poorly covered area of wikipedia which we should have coverage on... You may have your opinions about wedding dresses but there are entire books covering royal clothing in detail like this and museum sections dedicated to them. If reputable institutions such as the Museum of London deem royal fashion worthy of such detailed books and museum coverage then wikipedia should too. Articles like Coronation gown of Elizabeth II and Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth clearly meet guidlelines. Do you think they don't Daniel Case? Give it a few years and this dress will also have wide coverage in books... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When people are beginning to wonder if there are 'any more articles to write', a whole new doorway opening up to a big string of 'potential articles' like this has got to be a good thing :o) Pesky  ( talk ) 15:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge. My rationale is that basically you have "Speculation", "Design" and "Reception" and that is all this page will ever be, nothing more. All of the information can be easily put into the Wedding page. This page has produced a plague of Royal Wedding dress pages now - even this: Coronation gown of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. The precedent will be set if this page is kept and ultimately where will it stop? Stevo1000 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It will stop at articles that do not pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute, surely "and that is all this page will ever be, nothing more." is a weird rationale which could apply to thousands of articles on here? I mean, this article is already longer than some of our featured articles about minor tropical storms, for example. Presumably there was no more to say about those storms, but they're still considered notable and complete in their coverage. Bob talk 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify my view, the page to me is as far as it can go and is are quite short, therefore it be quite easily merged into the Royal Wedding page. I'm just concerned this will set a precedent for all wedding dresses and even famous dresses or clothes worn by a notable individual. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OK try Wedding dress of Queen Victoria. It is claimed that this very dress even started the modern day trend of white weddings. Read the white wedding article. That is extremely notable. Her wedding apparel has an entire section dedicated to it in one of the world's finest museums. Are you going to claim that they are wrong to think it notable? Read this Washington Post article which draws comparisons betweem Kate and Victoria]. We've clearly shown that royal wedding dresses are notable, as if the sources didn't already show that.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While we're here, I don't think the bold page move that's just happened is strictly correct, as it's arguable that it was commissioned for her while she was still Catherine/Kate Middleton. While it's under contention, though - should it be moved back to Kate or Catherine? (may need an admin to move) Bob talk 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely it should be Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, the name prior to marriage.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the world most famous wedding dress. might sound silly but it is true.. thats why it should be kept on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding dress of Grace Kelly started, will be expanded further later. Wedding dress of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis also notable according to sources, but I'm off for some fresh air! Articles will stop where sources don't exist, pretty simple really.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am delighted to see the new articles springing up as a result of this discussion, and I hope someone has the references to start an article on the collection of inaugural gowns of the first ladies of the United States in the Smithsonian.  (And the wedding suit of James II is in the V&A (image in Commons)...) - PKM (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Lasting notability cannot be determined now, unless we have a psychic, but watching CBS/ABC last night, I did hear them call the dress an "instant classic" and something that will be copied endlessly. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - 2 billion people saw Kate get married in it, imitations came out days later - I think its notable. Diana's dress has lasted, their is no reason why Kate's wont be. Prior to the wedding, its all people could talk about. Alexsau1991 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wedding dresses are clearly big business. Royal wedding dresses, including that of Lady Diana Spencer are on exhibition in a museum in, I think, Bath. Anything that is big business and which is retained for permanent exhibition is clearly notable. Two further points:
 * The section entitled "Speculation" should be renamed "Pre-wedding speculation". Provided that it is written in an encyclopeadic manner, I believe that given the amount of business associated with such matter makes this section sufficiently notable for retention.
 * It is interesting that the article Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton was nominated for deletion shortly after its creation. It had a 134,000 hits on the wedding day and its successor article Wedding_of_Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge,_and_Catherine_Middleton had a quarter of a million hits on the same day.
 * Martinvl (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - a good article, that can do absolutely no harm in just being there. 90.36.109.187 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been 10 more "keep"s and 2 more "delete"s added since a WP:SNOW request was last posted. Could an uninvolved admin perhaps make a decision, please? Bob talk 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Stronger than Chuck Norris keep - This is an extremely notable dress, the article is actually quite interesting (for some at least) and it worth being an addition to the encyclopedia.
 * Keep My mom loves this stuff.--Nowa (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (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.