Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The wedding of a minor royal is not notable enough for inclusion. Thus far all our articles concerning British royal marriages are about marriages of a sovereign, a child of a sovereign or a child of the heir to the throne. Eugenie is way down the list of succession and while there may be a few tabloid photos it's barely newsworthy let alone notable enough for inclusion here. Nixon Now (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Additional comment: or merge with Princess Eugenie of York. Nixon Now (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I really doubt that the granddaughter of the reigning monarch can be categorized as a minor royal. The fact that we don't have an article about the wedding of a grandchild of a sovereign is not a solid reason for deleting this article as this event cannot be compared to those of 50 years ago when internet didn't exist so not every single royal event could be covered. The event has already been covered and mentioned in multiple sources, including major news agencies and newspapers, thus it's notable. Keivan.f  Talk 07:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. She's not a minor royal, 8th in line to the throne, big event. Szzuk (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The BBC called her a "minor royal" and this was even before the birth of William's two children (and by the time she marries, she'll be 9th in line, not 8th): "As well as the Queen and her close family, the wedding will be teeming with more minor royals. Among the better known are Princess Beatrice and her sister, Eugenie, pictured here. Daughters of the Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson, aka Duke and Duchess of York, their full titles are HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York and HRH Princess Eugenie Victoria Helena of York"
 * In addition, Eugenie is not among the first six in the line to succession who are required to get the Queen's consent under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, and by the time the wedding occurs, not even her father will be one of the top 6 so I think that's a clear indication that she is a minor royal. Nor do we have articles for the marriages of Anne's children, Peter Phillips or Anne Phillips both of whom, like Eugenie, are grandchildren of the Queen yet considered minor royals. Nixon Now (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you also think this event isn't going to be covered by every major UK newspaper and TV channel? Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Many celebrity weddings get widespread news coverage. I suspect George Clooney's wedding to Amal Alamuddin received wider news coverage than Eugenie's wedding will yet we don't and shouldn't have an article dedicated to Clooney's wedding. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. The information in this article could easily be included in the article on Eugenie. Nixon Now (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all it's not possible to merge it with Eugenie's article as it will make the whole article look unbalanced. BBC mentions her as a minor royal in one report yet it covers her engagement in detail which means that news agencies like BBC consider this event notable, otherwise they wouldn't have covered it. Peter and Zara are the Queen's grandchildren in female line, yet they are neither prince/princess nor they are labeled as official members of the royal family. By the way, the articles related to royals cannot be compared to articles about celebrities. Clooney's wedding was a private event, not a public event like Eugenie's, and that's what makes the royals relevant in some ways – their weddings and funerals are public (and in some cases national) occasions. Keivan.f  Talk 22:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it a public event? It is not a state occasion and there is no indication that it will be televised live or that the prime minister or Commonwealth or foreign leaders will be in attendance. Being covered by the tabloid press and monarchy related magazines does not a public event make. Nixon Now (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And who says that it won't be televised? And as a matter of fact, neither William's wedding nor Harry's are state occasions, that's why I used the term public. I don't know what is considered a reliable source by you, but BBC, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc, are not tabloid press like Daily Mail. Peter and Zara's wedding ceremonies were also broadcast on BBC. Their arrival, departure, and almost everything (except the marriage service inside the chapel) was shown live on BBC and I even remember watching some parts of Zara's wedding. As with Eugenie's wedding, it hasn't been announced whether it will be televised or not. As of now, the announcement of their engagement, their interview on TV, etc, are similar in nature to what we have seen with Harry and Meghan during the past months, although they attract more attention due to Harry's popularity and Meghan's background. Keivan.f  Talk 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, what evidence do you have that it's a "public occasion". List your source. Having articles about it in the press or even an interview doesn't make it "public" any more than any other celebrity wedding. Nixon Now (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you can’t compare George Clooney’s wedding to a Princess wedding they are totally different things Clooney’s was a private event with only close friends and Family whilst Princess Eugenie’s as granddaughter of the Queen will have news coverage, Harry’s wedding is also not a special occasion it’s been said that it won’t be a bank holiday so what’s special about it? This to wedding are almost the same the only difference is that Harry is son of Princess Diana and Eugenie isn’t MaliG28 (talk)
 * That entirely depends on what your definition of "public" is. She's a royal, everything about her is public, and it's not my interpretation, they define themselves as public servants of the country, and almost all the details about their lives are made public, which in nature is in contrast to George Clooney or any other actor's life who are private citizens. The ceremony is going to be held at St George's Chapel, and is going to be similar to the weddings of her uncles Edward and Charles in 1999 and 2005 respectively, which means that it's going to get coverage but the ceremony will be simple, yet my question is what makes those weddings notable and this one unimportant? And to me it seems that as a member of the British royal family - probably the most well-known royal family in the world - her wedding is getting more coverage than those of princes or princesses from some other countries which we have articles about. Keivan.f  Talk 22:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * that’s exactly what I’m saying!! What makes this wedding less important than those of princesses most people don’t know about? MaliG28 (talk)
 * Eugenie is not one of the Royals paid through the privy purse so she is not a working or by your definition a "public" royal. As well, Windsor Castle is the Queen's personal property unlike Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's. She's a minor royal and her wedding is not a "public event" and does not merit an article. Nixon Now (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Being public has nothing to do with her source of income. She carries out public engagements on behalf of her grandmother and makes appearances unlike her other cousins Peter and Zara, so yes, she's a public figure. St George's Chapel is the venue for Harry's upcoming wedding and is the place where Edward's and Charles' weddings took place. Based on your rationale none of these events are neither public nor notable. Keivan.f  Talk 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * in the Duke of York’s website says that Eugenie is patron of 5 charities and organizations that makes her a “public” Royal. MaliG28 (talk)
 * You're making up a term and then defining it to suit your needs. The fact is she isn't paid from the privy purse and isn't included in the concept of a slimmed down monarchy that Buckingham Palace now supports.. See for example this article and this article Nixon Now (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is you who is trying to create a term. So to be considered a public figure she needs to get paid from the privy purse. I'm sorry, I know that she's not a "full-time royal" but I've never read anything like that before. I think we should let the voters judge. Keivan.f  Talk 05:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Princess Eugenie is the granddaughter of the most famous reigning monarch in the world so it will definitely be a public event, specially since we have internet it’s not only going to be seen in the UK but in other parts of the world as well, and it’s already been drawing attention from important newspapers. MaliG28 (talk)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We can have lots of coverage of this event in the article on Princess Eugenie, but there is no reason to have a stand alone article on it. Also with Prince Harry about to get married, that will make it likely that Princess Eugenie could be pushed even further down the line of succession soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You say Wikipedia is not a newspaper and yet there are wedding articles of lesser known royals such as Princess Madeleine’s and Prince Carl Phillip’s, and Harry is going to marry a few months before her so she won’t be pushed any further down the line of succession by the time of her wedding besides Miss Markle is 37 years old I doubt it will be easy for her to get pregnant soon. Princess Eugenie is a Princess by blood and the granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth her wedding will be an important event. MaliG28 (talk)
 * That's an argument for there to be an article on Princess Eugenie of York, not for there to be an article dedicated to her wedding.Nixon Now (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * so why this article has to be on her Wikipedia and the others mentioned on the comments get to have its own articles. Just because YOU think this is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant for the rest of us, if you don’t want to see or read this article then don’t do it. MaliG28 (talk)
 * Your argument in rebuttal here makes no sense and doesn't reference any Wikipedia policies or guidelines (not correctly at least). I think you need to review Wikipedia's articles for deletion process and how we establish notability here before you respond here further.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * there’s a point where it says “Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time” and this article is already an it will meet this criteria, as granddaughter of the queen her wedding will get a lot of coverage from important news, it’s notabi it’s not in jeopardy, like i said just because a few don’t know her it doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t know who she is, Harry’s wedding has it own Wikipedia page as well and why that one is okay but this one isn’t ? Not everyone knows Harry, Not everyone knows Eugenie’s but as grandchild of the current monarch their weddings will get a lot of attention MaliG28 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, a few weeks is not a "sufficiently significant period of time". Secondly, could you please sign your comments? Nixon Now (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Bound to be significant coverage of this event, not just of the tabloid variety, so this will pass WP:GNG. And she is a granddaughter of a reigning monarch. There's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL information that needs to be removed though (like the month in the infobox, which I thought hadn't been decided yet). This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, since she has a royal title, that gives added weight to this article's notable status. This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Princess Eugenie of York, where it will make a useful section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: the wedding of a princess is bound to be a significant event with major news coverage, especially if the bride is a member of the British Royal Family.181.67.252.166 (talk) 14:17,31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Will be a significant event. Articlewill be updated throughout the timeleft untik the wedding per British media sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify, arguments are stating that it will be a significant event. Let's wait until it is a significant event. -- J04n(talk page) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has already recieved plenty of media attention and is already high profiled. BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s already a significant event. MaliG28 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - She will be the first British princess of the blood royal to marry in almost thirty years, and the first in forty five with potential big press coverage. There has already been a good amount of media coverage by major sources such as the Telegraph and BBC. It would also look ungainly to have the list of attending members of the R.F on Eugenie's page and other famous people that may come and all the trivia and info surrounding the wedding. Also unlike her Phillips cousins, a press release of Eugenie's engagement has been put on the Royal Family's website and the engagement was retweeted and announced by the RF Twitter, and the other official twitters, which shows it is a royal wedding, not one where members of the Royal Family are invited. Prancer16 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as stated above when I posted on here last week. Also, as has been highlighted by someone else, she is the first British royal princess to marry in a long while, but the tiemspan is twenty six years rather than forty five, since, although we don't have an article about it, the Wedding of Anne, Princess Royal, and Timothy Laurence took place in 1992. This is Paul (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot about the Princess Royal's second marriage.Prancer16 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as the two comments above already highlighted she will be the first Princess by blood to marry in 26 years and the first to marry in the Church of England in 45 years (the Princess Royal second marriage was by the Church of Scotland as the Church of England didn’t allow divorced people to remarry)and as I already posted before, important news agencies have covered the engagement and will definitely cover the wedding as it will be an important event for the Royal Family. MaliG28 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment @This is Paul and MaliG28: I just have a question. I don't think it's necessary to vote again down here because our initial votes are going to get counted when the discussion is over, right? Keivan.f  Talk 22:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- engagement has been announced, and there's already sufficient coverage. Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is also a page. This would inevitably get recreated so might as well keep it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2018 (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.