Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate?


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This is a case in which there was little argument as to whether reliable sources had covered the topic. Rather the discussion centered on how to address the coverage of this story consistent with Wikipedia’s purpose. A minority of the commenters here felt that the coverage would most appropriately be merged back into the parent Catherine, Princess of Wales article, however that view did not reach consensus, with a decided majority either directly or implicitly noting the coverage would overwhelm the article. A majority of the editors responding here felt that the article should be kept, and the information from the sources covering the story presented here in some form. There was a fair bit of support among these editors for restructuring the focus of the article, or renaming it, but they concurred that it should not be deleted. A plurality of editors were concerned with the tabloid/gossip nature of much of the coverage, and argued NOTNEWS either directly, by reference in citing the essay WP:RECENTISM. To be clear however, I did not devalue the opinions of any group of editors; in my opinion the keep editors, collectively acknowledged NOTNEWS, but differed in their view of whether the amount and duration of coverage warranted an exception. I felt that the position that reached consensus in this discussion is that it did. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is Kate?

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I wrote this article and am bringing it to AfD in the hope of garnering community consensus about whether it should exist or not, and am therefore Neutral.

The article discusses recent speculation concerning the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales, which I think has reached sustained media coverage in reliable sources, and indeed, a relevant episode has been in the headlines of British papers today. Yesterday, I was surprised to read that contributing editors to the talk page of Catherine, Princess of Wales seem to have rejected several proposals for a separate article on this topic or inclusion of further media reporting into the article. Some of these discussions were closed by involved editors less than 24 hours after the proposal, which seemed to jump the chance to form community consensus.

These are experienced, good-faith editors with far more experience in WP:BLP and WP:GA than me, so their concerns (which, principally, I suspect are WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS), may be valid. On the other hand, the Catherine, Princess of Wales article seems to downplay the speculation entirely, and splits it between the subsections Health and Privacy and the media, and I think that has some WP:NPOV concerns, which of course, Where is Kate? also has (WP:CONTENTFORK). If the article is kept, there is likely a case for renaming, but what to? I defer to the community's judgment. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Internet,  and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge This has as much lasting notability as the Kate Middleton effect, which also used to be an independent article. Killuminator (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole thing should be deleted because it is a conspiracy theory and us as citizens of the world should not allow conspiracy theories to be posted to Wikipedia. This is like when Kim Jong-un disappears for sometime and there’s rampant speculation that he’s dead or and some undisclosed location it’s a conspiracy theory get over it. 2601:1C0:C602:59F0:9CDC:48C4:C0A0:3D36 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename – I agree that the Catherine, Princess of Wales main page should expand on the highly notable subject a bit more - a subsection in its existing location of "Privacy and media" is most fitting, since within the scheme of her biography I don't think it yet warrants a section of its own. This article is unique, the only peer I can think of is perhaps Conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales - if the article continues to exist, I believe it should be renamed thusly (Conspiracy theories about the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales) given that numerous reliable sources refer to the speculation as such (also here, here, and here --Bettydaisies (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do Not Rename until a better name is proposed. 'Where is Kate?' accurately encompasses the speculation, media coverage, conspiracy theories, much like the Megxit article is concisely named 86.31.83.194 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree - "Megxit" is a popular monkier. "Where is Kate" is not nearly as widespread to refer to the colloquial social media commentary or press coverage.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything more common and encompassing than "Where is Kate?". Vox (reliable source) just published this: https://www.vox.com/culture/24087565/princess-kate-middleton-disappearance-rumors-explained-abdominal-surgery-kensington-palace with the headline "Where is Kate Middleton?" 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Harpers Bazaar too (not listed on WP:RSP however): https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a60009409/kate-middleton-abdominal-surgery-disappearance-explained/. What other names could the article be titled if not that? 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * NBC (reliable source) published an article back in February with "Where's Kate Middleton?" in the title: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/kate-middleton-online-conspiracy-theories-memes-rcna141027 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! News (reliable source) published article titled "Where is Kate Middleton?" https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-kate-middleton-154750321.html 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And just as many reliable sources refer to the speculation as conspiracy theories. If renamed, it's title will be up to consensus. --Bettydaisies (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bettydaisies I had suppoet you to an extent. But the question is-Do we really need this? Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Paul is dead is a good precedent. Anyway, I wasn't really clued up on this until KP's photo yesterday: don't think it's notable enough for its own article. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One issue is it's not just the conspiracy theories that are the scope of the article (they currently comprise one sentence), but the speculation and media coverage surrounding Kate's absence. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind this is a forked page of a BLP. The veracity of information is paramount. The media coverage is rooted in public speculation about her health - beyond what has been publicly stated by the person's spokesman or the person herself. The public speculation isn't just about whether Kate Middleton got a BBL - it's about whether there is an active coverup - a conspiracy - about her health itself. The media itself has referred to the speculation as "rampant gossip" "furious rumors", and "social media speculation". Unless there are legitimate reliable sources that document an express concern about her health and wellbeing - which might indeed come out, but haven't yet been published - the speculation itself is rooted in an idea of conspiracy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is all the more reason for the article to exist. I mentioned in my other comment that ITV This Morning has already fallen for a hoax related to Where is Kate? https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/itvs-morning-slammed-falling-kate-32326495. So it would be useful to have an article, as the point of Wikipedia is to be a reliable source to prevent people falling for hoaxes.
 * Shouldn't the article be titled as such to refer to conspiracies then? The speculation existing as is in the article - especially in the lead - makes it seem like the media scrutiny about her hospitalization and subsequent events has happened organically, rather than from an uproar external concerns that are not yet evidence-based.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should cover well sourced reactions to her absence, including the Mother's Day photograph and well sourced reactions to it. It should not speculate about her health. Possibly rename it to "Where is Kate Middleton?", as that seems to be the most common amongst reliable sources, but 'Where is Kate?' seems perfectly fine as it is for conciseness:
 * https://www.vox.com/culture/24087565/princess-kate-middleton-disappearance-rumors-explained-abdominal-surgery-kensington-palace
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/kate-middleton-online-conspiracy-theories-memes-rcna141027
 * https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-kate-middleton-154750321.html
 * And some that are not listed on WP:RSP:
 * https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a60009409/kate-middleton-abdominal-surgery-disappearance-explained/ 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the speculation about the absence is rooted in conspiracy. The palace specifically mentioned the exact time her purported recovery would take. This is not a mystery. Almost all articles covering her absence mention the rampant social media conspiracies, and how various events have exacerbated them.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good argument, which I think is leaning towards convincing me. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That was Princess Diana's death. Nothing of the sort is happening or will happen here. This page should be kept so that the main article concerning Catherine is not unnecessarily expanded with something that will have little significance or relevance a decade later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's arguing for a WP:POVFORK which is contrary to policy. Either the content is right for Wikipedia or it isn't. You can't say it's good enough for an article you don't care about but not for an article you do care about. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales. It's too early for an article like this. The problem is AFAIK there's no reference to the issue in the main Catherine article. The OP says that it's split between the Health and Privacy and the media sections. I don't thiink that's true. I think there's literally no mention of it. There's mention of the photo controversy and the current health issue but no mention of the speculation. It seems to be an overzealous view of NOTNEWS. That's what needs to be corrected - not creating a whole article on it. What the article the subject of this AfD has demonstrated is that there is decent sourcing out there that entirely justifies its inclusion in the Catherine article.DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa Merging will largely increase the main article's size in an undesirable manner. If the recent reports are so important, lets KEEP this article. But please do not MERGE into Catherine, Princess of Wales. Regards and @Bettydaisies and @Keivan.f. MSincccc (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this article is kept then the per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE a summary of its content should be added to the main article. You've worked hard to keep all reference to the Where is Kate? issue out of the article. There is not one sentence on it in the article as a result. The size of the article has got nothing to do with that - over recent months you've assiduously added every piece of trivia about her to the article. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I stopped adding trivia to the article after the Coronation in May 2023 on your advice @DeCausa. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As some editors, myself included, have mentioned on talk pages, the Catherine, Princess of Wales article is heavily censored and not balanced. Furthermore, the pre-context of people already asking ‘Where is Kate?’  before  the Mother’s Day photograph was published is important. A ‘photoshop fail’ on its own isn’t notable, it’s pre-context makes it notable. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not often I contribute to articles that are in the news, but the WP:OWN issues at Catherine, Princess of Wales are glaring, to the detriment of encyclopaedic coverage. I'd urge involved editors to ensure they're fostering a collaborative environment that encourages consensus-building before they land at WP:ANI. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree Trim and Merge Cibrian209 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. The subject seems to have been notable for the past few months (so may be past the threshold for recentism) and has been talked about in the Catherine, Princess of Wales talk page a few times throughout, and has spiked in notability within the past 24hrs. The coverage has been notable, and covered by a lot of news sources. I think this may have already passed the threshold of WP:RECENTISM, but may be too early to judge. Furthermore, ITV This Morning has already fallen for a hoax related to Where is Kate? https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/itvs-morning-slammed-falling-kate-32326495. So it would be useful to have an article, as the point of Wikipedia is to be a reliable source to prevent people falling for hoaxes. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. It’s one of the biggest news stories (for better or worse) in the world. It’s well sourced. It ticks all of WP’s boxes for style and tone. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Don’t Rename. In my opinion, it’s currently way past the threshold for recentism. It’s well written and the sources are reliable. The title is currently the most appropriate, as that’s what the most reliable sources are calling it (already cited in article), similar to the title of the Megxit article. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete and don't merge - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Restructure — "Where is Kate?" is a strange title; "Catherine, Princess of Wales health concerns" would be more encyclopedic. I believe the Mother's Day photograph could warrant a separate article, but speculation on Catherine's health is speculation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the content for the article transcends the Mother’s Day photograph. It contains the coverage of her absence (including the Mother’s Day photograph). TheSpacebook (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I pointed out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I just re-read it. At no point in the article should it speculate on Catherine’s health. It should just cover well sourced reactions to her absence, and strange events during the absence (such as the Mother’s Day photo) TheSpacebook (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * made a good point in Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales: the hoo-ha over the photo makes zero sense without the 'Where's Kate?' background. This is the issue I have with Catherine, Princess of Wales at the moment: by separating the discussion of the various events in this story between Health and Privacy and the media, it doesn't capture well the narrative that explains why both the health and the photograph were notable. And while I apprecite that speculation...is speculation, it's speculation that has been reported extensively by reliable sources. Relatedly, it's not a conspiracy theory article. But one option that you lead me to wonder is whether we might restructure the article so that it becomes about the Mother's Day photograph, and then rename it to something suitable (what?) with a background section discussing the speculation. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Should it cover (well sourced) reactions to her entire absence, or just talk about the photograph? I think a stand-alone Mother’s Day photo article would vastly miss the context of the coverage of her absence. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a restructured article around the photograph could have exactly the same content as the current Where is Kate? article, just grouping Hospitalisation and Speculation as subheadings under a Background heading. I think the underlying issue is that there are three components to this story as suggested by the current headings of Where is Kate?: 1) hospitalisation, 2) speculation, 3) the mother's day photograph. Any one of these three components could be a viable title heading, and "speculation" could also be "conspiracy theories" or, indeed, as it is now, "Where is Kate?". The milestones to choosing the best article title will probably move as the story develops: "Where is Kate?" will presumably run out of currency very soon as we now all know where Kate is, while something to do with the mother's day photograph might grow even more legs if the story doesn't die down in 24 hours (which it may well do so). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it generally matters that the question has now been answered, as the article covers the, now historical, commentary of reliable sources asking it. As per the first line: In early 2024, speculation… asked "Where is Kate?". TheSpacebook (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They’ve had ‘photoshop fails’ before, but this one is notable due to the absence and people already asking ‘Where is Kate?’ before the Mother’s Day photo was even published. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep and Rename I think everybody has covered it above. Q  T C 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong coverage in reliable sources, including world-wide headlines of the doctored Mother's Day photo and subsequent newswire retractions. Current name is good, cc Megxit and Paul is dead, don't rename unless a better one is proposed outside this AFD. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trim and rename to 2023 Mother's Day photograph by Catherine, Princess of Wales The day-to-day blog at the top is not notable, the photo is. The answer to the question is pretty clear 'Sitting in Windsor, fiddling on her laptop'. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article covers the well sourced commentary of her absence starting as early as February, and the reliable sources all asking “Where is Kate?”. The photo is just the most recent development. Focusing on that may classify as recentism, if unbalanced to the rest of the sources. Also, the photo was credited as taken by Prince William, in 2024, so it would be inaccurate to say “by Catherine”86.31.83.194 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, accounts differ, but in that case rename differently or Delete. We really don't want the froth at the top. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the "froth" reads like an undercurrent of royal gossip leading up to the photograph. I'm decidedly not a royal family fan and didn't pay any attention to the story until I came across the talk page of the Catherine article — my exposure to the news is limited to checking the BBC website once or twice a day — but the army website debacle and the sudden memorial service apologies both caught my eye and were fairly prominent news items when they happened. The Celeb Big Brother comments and paparazzi photograph were not (I suspect the latter might have had more coverage outside the UK).  But all this is to say that the froth is context that did receive considerable media coverage at its time, rather than retrospective engineering to justify the notability of the Mother's Day photograph.  As the article's sources suggest, speculation about Kate's condition was reported before the photograph, symbiotically with the froth events.  To this extent, I don't really see why the froth needs to be binned.  Its lasting effect is the speculation; if the speculation is notable, so is the froth; if the speculation isn't notable, then the Mother's Day photograph doesn't really make any sense. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The “froth” is paramount. It could be rewritten so it reads less like a timeline. But it’s definitely needed as pre-context for the Mother’s Day photo. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to section in the biography. NOTNEWS! JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, with no stance to the name. I think that the article, with it's current sources and the others already mentioned here, establish notability to validate it's inclusion on Wikipedia. While it is primarily based on the mother's day photo, as others have pointed out, the earlier speculation and health events lend context to the photo and help to explain the level of speculation. Given the length in my opinion it also passes WP:NOPAGE to prevent the Catherine, Princess of Wales article from becoming to cluttered, and with the number of reliable sources that have now provided coverage including, the BBC, Le Monde, CNN, Deutche Welt, and others moves it beyond previous tabloid speculation. While yes, it's WP:RECENT that's something that can be reviewed in future to see if it keeps being brought up in reliable sources. Shaws username  .  talk  . 01:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Having read and engaged with the above discussion, as nominator, I'm persuaded towards Keep. I think the notability of the topic (through significant coverage in reliable sources) is beyond doubt for now, and the article can be merged into the Catherine article as and when the topic's lasting effects, if any, become clearer.  A standalone article may not be justified in the future by WP:RECENTISM, but WP:NOPAGE persuades me for now.  There are cases for renaming to Conspiracy theories about the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales and Mother's Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales, or keeping the current article title.  Because of the link between the hospitalisation, speculation, and photograph, I do not think any trimming is necessary to suit a page move, just changes to lead sections and (sub)heading titles/organisation as appropriate.  Lastly, I'm concerned by this talk-page interaction, which, combined with the interactions that led me to write the article in the first place, confirms my worry that editors pursuing GA/FA status for the Catherine article are happy to accept less comprehensive coverage of recent events even where such coverage is evidently due.  A recent edit summary to the Catherine article banished a trivial sentence from it to the equally trivial article Where is Kate?.  At this point, a merge might cause more aggravation than it is worth, and it can be executed as aforementioned in the future once the dust settles on the lasting cumulative effects of the hospitalisation, speculation, and photograph. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a further comment (I don't want to bludgeon, just contribute to the discussion): I think citing the ten-year test as Delete-supporting editors have done is off:
 * The 10YT (which is essay, not policy) really concerns recentism in writing style and proportion, not notability. On notability, the 10YT says: detailed stand-alone articles and lists may [over time] no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. To me, this doesn't suggest that the 10YT is intended as a deletion rationale (unlike WP:NOTNEWS), or that we should anticipate an article's future notability ten years early. In fact, the 10YT seems to expect articles on recent events to be condensed over time, rather than outrightly deleted (see my blockquote at 14:02 UTC below).
 * We don't know yet what the long-term lasting effects of this controversy will be (WP:CRYSTALBALL), and it seems premature to delete the article supposing there will be no lasting effects before Catherine has even returned to public duties. We're still seeing commentary in reliable, non-tabloid sources, and the article is duly being expanded. Catherine's return will inevitably lead to new commentary as well.
 * Per above, the 10YT acknowledges that future revisions can counter recentism in articles, such that we can apply the ten-year test in ten years' time or at a future AfD/merge discussion, which we do not need to preempt right now.
 * IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep When I first saw this article I was wary of the tabloid-esque nature of the controversy and questioned whether this was part of the over-coverage of Anglosphere topics and on Wikipedia. But ultimately this controversy is notable in my opinion largely because of the obsessively secretive behaviour of the royal family themselves. One of the most privileged families in the world receiving more than £100 million in taxpayer handouts every year for cutting a few ribbons think they owe taxpayers no degree of transparency when their second-most senior member and his family just disappear for half the year. That has become a part of this story, and their silence and generally weird behaviour ("Kensington Palace said it would not be issuing the unedited photograph", as if there really is something mysterious about the original photo) does nothing but fuel the conspiracy theories, and fuel the story. AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Couldn’t have put it better myself. It’s such an odd story and does show the monarchy in a bad light and highlights issues with the monarchy, which can’t be supressed on Wikipedia. The reason why this article is notable is, to quote you: because of the obsessively secretive behaviour of the royal family themselves. One of the most privileged families in the world receiving more than £100 million in taxpayer handouts every year for cutting a few ribbons think they owe taxpayers no degree of transparency when their second-most senior member and his family just disappear for half the year… and their silence and generally weird behaviour ("Kensington Palace said it would not be issuing the unedited photograph", as if there really is something mysterious about the original photo) 86.31.83.194 (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a policy-based rationale. This is "keep because it makes the royals look bad". Of course, you're entitled to your personal opinions, but that isn't a neutral or really a good-faith reason to want to have the article stay. Ie, less Republican Manifesto, more WP:GOODARG. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my comments I'm explaining why I believe the controversy is notable and therefore meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a very partisan way, based on your opinion of the monarchy instead of any sourcing or notability requirements. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. The majority of the content on the page is speculation (OK, reports of speculation by reliable sources, but speculation nonetheless) and trivia. The content in could possibly be expanded very slightly, but that in  is already more than sufficient IMO and could be trimmed down when considering the WP:10YEARTEST.
 * Don't Rename even if and when the title question is answered. The title 'Where is Kate?' is not a thesis title, so doesn't need to be explicitly answered. The article is a discussion of the commentary surrounding her absence and the strange events that happened which drew attention causing the question to be asked by reliable sources. Other editors prefer this title, as per Paul is dead. In the same way that article won't need renaming when Paul McCartney actually dies, this article doesn't need renaming because/if/when the question is answered. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's sourced, beyond "recent-ism," and in the news a lot. Maybe merge it with the Kate Middleton article, but my preference is for the standalone article as it is. BalletForCattle (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep — This has been a major topic of conversation on British social media (and more widely) for several weeks. The surprisingly poor handling of the topic by Kensington Palace has turned this into front page news for most of the newspapers here (indeed all of the nationals except the Financial Times today) and the subject of copious discussion on TV and radio. I would prefer a more formal-sounding title, such as Conspiracy theories about the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales or something, and nobody is asserting that the article will definitely be notable in 5 years' time. But we can hold another AfD then, if we think that is the case. In the WP:10YEARTEST, this might end up being a section in her article or that of William's — or possibly even a part of something like End of the British monarchy. But for now, we've moved beyond WP:NOTGOSSIP into a major issue of public debate here in the UK and it feels foolish not to reflect that. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At no point should we speculate on her health. The article is about the commentary of her absence and strange behaviour. The article currently reads: "Among the conspiracy theories, Catherine was hiding after a bad hairstyle or was recovering from buttock augmentation surgery', which isn't health. Furthermore, the article currently draws attention to absence of her wedding ring, "In a separate oddity, analysts noted that Catherine was not wearing a wedding ring". Regarding the title, I don't think it needs to be overly formal. Paul is dead doesn't need to be Conspiracy theories alleging Paul McCartney died. Lenin was a mushroom doesn't need to be Conspiracy theories about the species of Vladamir Lenin. And Megxit doesn't need to be called Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, stepping back as senior members of the British royal family. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete this embarrassing gossipy nonsense inspired & hyped by tabloid press and its need to sell ads. Two sentennces in her main article should suffice once the question has become obsolete. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The question is already obsolete. The article says at the end of the second paragraph: "Later that day, Catherine was seen leaving Windsor in a car with William." In the same way that Paul is dead won't need renaming when Paul McCartney actually dies, this article doesn't need renaming because the question is obsolete. The article is a discussion of the commentary surrounding her absence and the strange events, such as the Mother's Day photo, which drew attention causing the question to be asked by reliable sources. In the say way that Where's Wally? doesn't need to be renamed every time he's found. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Full disclosure, I may be one of those cynical talk page editors mentioned in the nomination, though I mainly restricted myself to rebutting descriptions of "scandal" and "escapades", which remain absurd. This strikes me as the very definition of no information. A person says they're having surgery and will be out of action for a while, then nothing happens. As already stated. Nothing, as in nothing except tabloids repeating fabricated nonsense from trolls on Reddit. Where is Kate? She's exactly where she said she would be, probably doing very little. It's no information. Apologies to the author(s) but the whole news story is what we in the UK call "tabloid trash". Mention the health in the main article, mention the photo editing, and there's nothing left. Some of the keep votes actually describe it best: 'news', 'speculation', 'froth', 'social media'... -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Froth" was originally described, by an editor, as content to be deleted. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That leaves the other three aspects I highlighted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think it's a non-story, but we're beyond tabloid territory. Of the 46 sources in the article, none are tabloids/listed as unreliable on WP:RSP, and a good number date before the Mother's Day photograph on 10 March that really pushed the story onto national headlines and prominent pages in the international press. Putting this point best, referring to the BBC's 29 February article, one of the sources in the article says something along the lines of "even the BBC has had to comment on the speculation". There's no doubt that the speculation doesn't come from reliable sources (and who, honestly, thinks Catherine really did get a BBL or get lost in Willy's Chocolate Experiences?), but what distinguishes it from "tabloid trash" here is that it's been so widely reported and discussed/analysed by non-tabloid sources. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most likely it is a 'non-story' as said by zzuzz, in the sense that there's an innocent explanation for everything. But what's happened is that it's crossed over from social media/tabloids into broadsheets/ BBC etc. That process was initially 'look-at-the-silly-conspiracy-theories' type articles to look-at-how-the-palace-has made it worse. But that's kinda irrelevant. The RS are talking about this and it pretty much doesn't matter that it all started from nothing. Its significance for us is that it's now got WP:DUE prominence in the RS. Pretending it hasn't is a type of WP:RGW. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that the article should exist, in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. How long until we conclude the AfD, and focus the attention on creating a well written article? 86.31.83.194 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * AfDs typically last for 7 days. In other replies, for me, crossing from a tabloid story, to a news story, doesn't really hit the bar. YMMV. As NOTNEWS puts it, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no fundamental flaws of the article and ( let's remember this is AfD ) I believe the situation passes WP:GNG given the event-specific coverage. I think that all the calls for WP:NOTNEWS are relevant insofar as news articles can be primary sources (see ) but a lot of the good writing done here has completely avoided the tabloids we've listed as unreliable, and cite to stories that are reports of all the ongoings about this, by definition secondary; this therefore qualifies as passing WP:GNG. Keep all the royal drama and anlysis out of this and onto the talkpage or elsewhere. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep; Maybe Rename? The article is well referenced and written. We also probably shouldn’t merge it into Catherine, Princess of Wales seeing as that article is already quite long.
 * "Where is Kate?" is a bit sensational. I think the ideas for other titles that have been discussed previously are good. Slamforeman (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that “Where is Kate?” is the most appropriate as that’s what people are asking in the first four sources. I wish it was widely known as “Kate-gate”, that would’ve saved us a lot of time! 86.31.83.194 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Added Kategate redirect, per reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep & Potentially Rename: Perhaps a title such as "Kate Middleton Photograph Controversy" might be more encyclopedic. "Where is Kate?" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia and more closely resembles that of a gossip magazine. As for the article itself, I'm in favor of keeping it. As others have said, merging it with the main article risks making the main article unnecessarily lengthy, and this article is well-sourced and on a notable topic. Perhaps it could be reorganized somewhat if it is renamed, but at the moment I don't see any fundamental flaws in it that warrant it's deletion. Any discussions for deletion should likely take place in the future. Retroity (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think title you suggested might be inaccurate, as the article details the commentary before the photograph (speculation, TMZ photo, uncle in Big Brother). The photograph is just the most recent development. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The current title is more in line other controversies such as Megxit and Paul is dead. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop bludgeoning the process. You are literally under every comment making the same points. At this rate you are in danger of violating the code of conduct policies on disruptive behavior. Keivan.f  Talk 20:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Controversies that were given common names. There is no name for this. "Where is Kate?" is a question, not a name. By extension, should the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act be known as "Bill to Ban TikTok" on Wikipedia because a few headlines used that verbiage? If you wanted to argue that the title should be "WhereIsKate", I could see how there would be a common name there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No reason why the RS can't name a controversy with a question, as they clearly have done with this one. See Who is a Jew?. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep with the name I don't really like renaming this so soon, since if we're being frank we don't even know what the underlying issue is aside from "where is kate?". It would be silly to rename this "Kate Middleton Photograph Controversy" only to have her discovered in a ditch a month from now. Corundum Conundrum  (CC) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep and retitle The photograph "controversy" has become a notable event, however framing the article around speculation and conspiracy is wrong.LM2000 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to something like Catherine, Princess of Wales health concerns. The topic is being covered heavily in the media but "Where is Kate?" is not a common term that RS have used to describe the situation and shouldn't be used. Jbvann05  21:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Close (if agreed) and move that title discussion to the Talk page. Should I start the discussion? I’m new here, but surely the title discussion isn’t the place in an AfD discussion. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You've already !voted above, so I've taken the liberty of striking the bold bits here. The title issue really summarises the problem here for me. No one agrees on what this title should be as there's no clear scope. It's a collection of news stories. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I’m new here! Should an AfD discuss the title or not? I’ve opened up a discussion on the talk page if we should move the title discussion there, and keep this discussion keep-or-delete focused. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename and keep. Suggest to name it Kategate if it helps to keep it succinct Cibrian209 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - as this isn't tabloid-pedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:GNG. Unless of course in-depth articles from The Atlantic, The New Yorker, WaPo, NPR, Associated Press, The Atlantic (again), The New York Times, The New York Times (again), The New York Times (part 3), and LA Times are considered tabloid gossip.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 05:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to descriptive title &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – it's not encyclopaedic. Headhitter (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note I’ve already voted above, but yesterday this article had around 10% of the number of viewers that the main Catherine article had. Is this information relevant in a deletion discussion? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-03-11&end=2024-03-12&pages=Where_is_Kate%3F|Catherine,_Princess_of_Wales TheSpacebook (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge, or failing that rename. Should Wikipedia cover this issue, given its prominence in the media? Yes. Does it really needs its own article? Not really, in my view. However, the title is not appropriate. Wikipedia article titles are not formatted as questions. If this point is not yet included in MOS:AT then it is because, for 20 years, it has been regarded as sufficiently obvious - c.f. for instance Who is Joe Biden?, Where is Timbuktu?, and What is the armament of the Iowa-class battleship. Wikipedia is not Quora, nor is it Jeopardy!. The Land (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to a more Wikipedia-appropriate title. At this point it is definitely notable enough for its own article, regardless of whether it's valid speculation or not. As far as the title, there have been a number of news sites calling it "Kategate", so if that becomes more widespread it would be a decent choice. Estreyeria (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, unfortunately. Passes WP:NOTNEWS and has been sufficiently covered by multiple reliable independent sources to have established the subject's notability. No comment on the rename; in any case that's an issue for the talk page rather than here, and certainly not a priority.Later: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank User:Rosbif73 for removing the table. I expect this to be per WP:NOTVOTE, etc. excellent work, and thanks for acting so promptly.  ——Serial Number 54129  14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is inherently notable and has been covered by multiple independent sources. She has been missing since December. The title may be rephrased as Disappearance of Kate Middleton or similar. --TadejM my talk 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wildly inappropriate - she has not been "missing" or 'disappeared' at all, just failing to make public appearances while she recovers from an operation. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You may call it whatever you wish. She has been missing since December. This has been covered by a number of independent sources. Claiming that "she recovers from an operation" is pure speculation. --TadejM my talk 17:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not speculation. Kensington Palace said that she would undergo surgery and not return to public duties until after Easter.   Jbvann05  21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of WP's purpose here. It's not to expose the reality of the situation. To ignore the "froth" and to report the truth. No. It's to reflect what's appearing in the WP:RS whatever that is. The article, like it or not, does that. It's not our job to say this is all nonsense, even though that may well be the case. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should reflect what RS are saying, but TadejM is calling the true fact that she is recovering from a surgery "speculation". The news of her surgery has been widely covered in RS as well as by the royals themselves so calling it speculation and her absence from royal duties an unexplained disappearance is wrong. The speculation in the media has arisen from the true nature of her health and why she edited the photograph, not why she is absent in the first place. Jbvann05  22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect, plenty of sources in the article that predate the Mother's Day photograph discuss why she is absent in the first place rather than the nature of her health and why she edited the photograph. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition, what is reported by the Kensington Palace has been recognised as 'not reliable' e.g. by AFP, and I agree that it should be used with caution since the Palace staff is not independent and it has (at least) recently been providing spurious material. --TadejM my talk 02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename, perhaps to Catherine, Princess of Wales Absence Controversy. This is a serious issue that – by objective measures – is unprecedented and cause for speculation. Even if this were resolved tomorrow by the Palace, the previous controversy would be, in my view, relevant to keep as its own page. Mhapperger (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Jbvann05 and Johnbod. When she inevitably reappears we can condense the entire brouhaha into three lines in the 2020s section of her biography. The title is absolutely dreadful. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being; title is fine for now - if media crystallizes around some other expression we can use that. Reduce to three lines as per No Swan So Fine once she's back and we've forgotten all about this.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the long-term coverage of this on wikipedia will boil down to three lines (which sounds about right to me, maybe even less), how can it be encyclopedic to have more than those three lines for the time being? WP:NOTNEWS. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine for there to be more lines now, even a separate article, but not in the future. Per WP:10YT: IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete tabloid fodder is not encyclopedic. Richiepip (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * delete fails ten-year test. ltb d l (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * delete this grotesque BLP-violating festival of WP:NOTNEWS tabloid indulgence. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep & Potentially Rename: per Retrocity above. Perhaps focusing more on the photo issue, which is a big media story in many RS as well as tabloids/websites. Rwendland (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as tabloid gossip that has no place in Wikipedia. Maybe extend Catherine, Princess of Wales a little with some factual content from this article (e.g. the photo doctoring evidence). Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the main article has enough information on the matter. Nothing more to be added there.
 * Delete I commend the creator for putting the article forward for debate. Here's my take. The main article adequately covers the photo controversy and mentions that there have been speculations surrounding her health, which is backed by reliable sources. Anything more than that would be something that only the gutter press would cover. I also don't see the point of this article once the woman reappears in public. 10 years from now, we won't be needing to have an article that is mostly covering social media frenzy and hysteria on the Internet concerning a person's abdomen. Keivan.f  Talk 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It may have been tabloid sensationalism to begin with, but it is now evidently a topic being covered by notable enough sources that Wikipedia should keep this rather comprehensive summary of what's gone on, at least for now. Having said that, similar to others above, I expect this will die down as soon as she restarts her public appearances; while I don't necessarily think the article should just be deleted when that happens, it certainly should be reassessed in the 'cold light of day' to see whether it still warrants an entire article. Perhaps most importantly for everyone citing WP:10YT, I would emphasise the 'just wait and see' paragraph - we don't need a rushed answer now on what seems to be a rather divided discussion, let's leave it for when consensus (and the media cycle) have a more solid, sober assessment of the topic. Gazamp (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Is anyone actively tallying the number of individuals in favor of and against the deletion proposal, as well as those remaining neutral? It would be beneficial if such a count could be maintained. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus will be drawn based on the strength and validity of arguments, not the number of votes. Keivan.f  Talk 18:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In discussions that have attracted as much participation as this, the discussion closer often provides a "headcount", but as says, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Rather than tracking !votes, the best any editor can do is engage with the discussion to help reconcile other editors' views towards consensus. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this page only viewable in desktop not mobile?
 * It is collapsed when you use a mobile phone. You have to open the section up in order to see the comments; like you would normally do when reading an article on a mobile phone. Keivan.f  Talk 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * KEEP- The article serves a purpose by addressing current media rumours and hypotheses, providing reliable sourcing and avoiding speculation. Therefore, it's important to retain it for the time being. Regards, MSincccc (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, Rename and rewrite – Subject is notable and there is no indication of content forking and tabloid and is neutral; it could be rewritten just like others. Note that the articles are so long so keeping a separate article while renaming it makes sense. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and not rename, wide media coverage by reliable sources. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, rationale as above. DimensionalFusion   (talk)  08:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The article contains a multitude of reliable sources presenting significant coverage, making the topic obviously notable and deserving its own independent page. Skyshifter   talk  09:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other reasons. The article could be renamed, though. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments (reliable sources, significant media coverage, notable person). Codyorb (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons stated above. This has gotten significant media coverage from many sources. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per reasons clearly articulated by various editors above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets GNG, still generating coverage, would be too much for the Kate Middleton article so needs a separate page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have said this is nothing more than tabloid fodder that don’t represent the facts. Even if you want to say other sources have mentioned it, it is still based on opinion and the pieces add no evidence to the situation. There is also the addition of conspiracy and certain fan groups of other wanting to contribute to this situation which goes beyond what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloeheod34 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into the main Kate article. This is currently a massive media circus that has achieved notability in its own right. I hope it will eventually end up being merged into the main Kate article anyway once she has emerged safe and well. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there are 36 in favour of keeping and 20 in favour of deleting or merging. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales. Something in the cultural zeitgeist (even if arguably quite flash-in-the-pan) can clearly be encyclopedic, see Barbenheimer and "Envelopegate" (I use the name in the List of -gate scandals and controversies article). I think it's compounded by the fact she is the spouse of the heir apparent to the British throne -- we likely wouldn't be having this discussion if the subject of the article was e.g., Mike Tindall (spouse of Zara Phillips, 21st in line). I note it is weak support for keeping because although encyclopedic I do not think it should be kept as a separate article, for the same reason I think Envelopegate isn't a separate article. Unless there is a major development in her situation I think the ultimate fate of this article is to be merged. MrSeabody (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * MERGING into the main article was, is and never will be a desirable thing to do. The best we can do is to either KEEP or DELETE this article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @MSincccc you have multiple bolded words in your comments. As well as MERGING, KEEP and DELETE in this comment, you have KEEP and MERGE in your comment at 07:38 UTC on 12 March, and you have KEEP in your comment at 06:09 UTC on 17 March. Both of the latter comments could be interpreted as !votes, and you're only allowed one !vote per AfD.  It's generally helpful only to bold your !vote, as bolding other terms might confuse the closing editor and frustrate their attempt to read consensus :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely,, and thanks for pointing that out.  ——Serial Number 54129  16:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was very clear from the outset that I favoured the retention of the article and would not, in any case, propose the merging of all the content of Where is Kate? to Catherine's main article. Also anyone who actually reads my comment will know that I intend to see the article been kept should the speculations continue for the longer term. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, and your position is clear and consistent across your comments. It's just formatting to help other editors, especially the closing editor, make it clear what positions are being taken with how much strength.  Per WP:DISCUSSAFD: You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have seen WP:NOPAGE cited for keeping this article, but I think the spirit of this guideline proves otherwise. Our job is "to consider how best to help readers understand". In this case, it does not help the reader to promote the conspiracy theories and paranoia surrounding this situation (which is also guilty of WP:RECENTISM). Reliable sourcing covers the situation, yes, but reliable sourcing covers lots of topics that don't make it onto the encyclopedia. A few sentences of context at the Kate Middleton article would be much more helpful for the reader and more in line with what I understand to be the premise of Wikipedia. If this indeed spirals into something deserving of its own article like Paul is dead, Wikipedia will cross that bridge at that point, but we can't rely on that assumption right now (WP:CRYSTAL). TNstingray (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This is RECENTISM. Yes, media commented about a thing. An encyclopedia should not be the dutiful scribe for journalists. Let's circle back in fifty years.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously this is notable, can't believe this is under debate when you have idiots creating wikipedia pages for obviously non-notable people to make a stupid point in these kinds of discussions. What a laugh! 87.196.74.92 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (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.