Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This is a procedural close. The closure of the first AFD is being reviewed right now at Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is Kate?
AfDs for this article:


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

News regarding the subjects recent cancer diagnosis has been revealed, which should override any previous deletion review and override the time limit from the previous AfD close. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. WP:TNT after recent diagnosis. See also discussions at the previous AfD, DRV, and BLP noticeboard. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What's changed since the previous AfD that closed a few days ago is that the cancer diagnosis has shifted the goalposts entirely. The speculation merited an article for the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources it attracted, and there was (in my view) consensus expressed in the previous AfD to apply the WP:10YT in the fullness of time, likely eventually resulting in the article's merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales.  To me, the diagnosis means that the WP:10YT applies today, not in ten years' time.  We are effectively now talking about Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales, with all the speculation in the article as a background section. That kind of article presents evident WP:BLP concerns, and is outside the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Switching !vote to Neutral. Having substantially reorganised and trimmed the article, I think an article focussed on the speculation or Mother's Day photograph could be viable without running into WP:BLP concerns, if it is treated as a historical documentation of the mass media interest/speculation leading up to today's sad announcement. No doubt, further commentary will emerge over the coming hours about how awful said interest and speculation was.  But that means that, unless the speculation continues, the article's scope should stop with this evening's announcement and any further commentary offered on the speculation. As the article's creator, one of its major editors, and the previous AfD nominator, I self-imposed a user topic ban on editing the article this morning, not expecting to work so much this evening on clean-up in case the article is kept. It has become a timesink detracting from the reasons I started editing Wikipedia, and I'm conscious of the tortured responses the article has evoked on the BLP noticeboard, which is why I'm excusing myself from the AfD. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete or rewrite the article completely with a proper title This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. We should not be scrutinizing the moves of a living person that is under going treatment for cancer. Most of the article is speculation anyway and falls short of criteria set by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Keivan.f  Talk 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is clearly a WP:BLP issue, and both the BLP noticeboard and DRV discussions highlighted that the BLP argument has struggled to specify exactly how this is a BLP issue: nobody, for example, has even quoted the relevant part of WP:BLP. At the same time, I think it should be a BLP issue if it isn't, and there may be a case to open an RfC to more clearly draw lines. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: while it is unfortunate that someone has been diagnosed with cancer, the actual GNG analysis of this "event" and the coverage of the speculation conducted at the end of the last close is still valid (arguement for a speedy keep). The article can be written to include (what will presumably be) the close of this saga. Further, all the calls of the BLP violation don't actually identify a problem; and if there were one it could be remedied on the page by being challenged in the article or discussed on the talk page. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the witch hunt the woman was subjected to is indeed a notable event. However, I think the article should be rewritten entirely if it were to be kept. We need to remove all the speculation and unnecessary details and discuss the phenomenon itself, similar to Paul is dead. Keivan.f  Talk 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The article will now naturally progress to the past tense and I'm sure there will be plenty of ink spilled by secondary sources about how this was a terrible thing to happen and to speculate on, and that can and should be added to the article as well. The fact remians that we are at articles for deletion  and we have no valid reason to delete this article, except for what appears to be a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, seeing as the ink hadn't even dried from the first deletion nom, as evidenced by the fact that there was an ongoing WP:DRV at the time of the re-nomination. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-write as a lesson for the media and social media on how NOT to treat public figures when they are recovering from surgery Regarding my extensive editing on the article, I did my best to keep it reliably sourced, neutral tone, and kept the widespread unsubstantiated conspiracies sectioned off in its own section. Removed all tabloids and trivia. I thank those who have recognised that I was doing that, against the onslaught of international mainstream news outlets propagating the story further. It wasn’t a BLP violation before, but since the news it’s a clear BLP violation. Me and the involved editors have created Frankenstein’s monster. This must be deleted. Also, those with a Wikipedia-centric view of the internet, this article got less than 10k views per day, as opposed to the 400million views the media, and social media commentary received. The article had about 0.0000025% the viewership. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be worthwhile to note that and I collectively constitute 59.6% of the article's added text, and are seemingly in agreement on deletion. We even edit-warred over who would write the deletion nomination statement! IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We kept it balanced, reliably sourced, free from tabloid gossip. We kept it neutrally toned and opened up talk page discussions to build consensus. We were unaware of the recent news, even though Kensington Palace lied and said it was “cancer free”. We were unaware of the Frankenstein monster we were actually creating. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't twist the facts please. Nobody lied. They did the surgery, did test afterwards (most probably biopsy) and then found cancer was present. Catherine herself stated that at first they thought her condition was non-cancerous. Keivan.f  Talk 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I only read the news reports when I wrote that comment, and just finished watching the video now. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * AfD doesn't typically consider WP:OWNERSHIP to be a valid reason to delete content. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As the creator and the most involved editors, we can recognise that we contributed the most to unknowingly creating a BLP Frankenstein’s monster; and immediately finding a solution to a problem we made the most contributions to, when the new information was released. I maintain that it wasn’t a BLP violation before, but since the recent announcement, it now is one. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - As I expressed on the talk page, this article is fundamentally unencyclopedic. We are not required to cover everything which is covered by reliable sources, and exercising editorial judgment is our role as Wikipedians. This article fails the WP:10YEARTEST and does not add any value to Wikipedia. A social media feeding frenzy spilling into reliable sources =/= a notable event. One or two sentences on Catherine, Princess of Wales would be more than adequate to cover this non-event. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * how does it fail WP:10YEARTEST? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Social media frenzies happen all the time. Occasionally they spill over into reliable media. In 10 years, the fact that "there were conspiracy theories and media speculation about Catherine's health and whereabouts before she announced she had cancer" will be enough to tell the reader everything they need to know at an appropriate level of detail and summarization. We are an encyclopedic summary of the world, and are not required to cover every event which occurs in minute detail (here nearly 3000 words!) - especially when the "event" turns out to be a non-event which has serious WP:BLP considerations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats not the WP:10YEARTEST. I asked you how it fails the WP:10YEARTEST. It also turned out to be an event, the speciation was right... There was a cover-up going on. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The first three sentences of my reply directly address your question - the last gives further context. If you disagree with my perspective, no problem, but I don't think I can explain it much more clearly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something then, can you quote the part which you think isn't met? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure: Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?....Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may 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... This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. The Mother’s Day photo was one of the main reasons conspiracies surfaced and the subject is notable, and there's enough in that to where it could not be reasonably covered in a short paragraph. Slamforeman (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: per previous deletion discussion, incredibly notable event with hundreds of articles from top-tier reliable sources. Today's unfortunate announcement that she is undergoing cancer treatment only adds to the notability of event; the speculation and media commentary on undue secrecy from the publicly funded royal family (Never complain, never explain, Republicanism in the United Kingdom, etc.) is only strengthened by the apparent reality that the Kensington Palace public statement that her surgery was "planned", "successful", and "not cancer-related" was either willfully or unknowingly false. This will continue to be a notable event in the history of the British royal family. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * An extremely interesting take about lying about it not being cancer-related and covering it up. And then explaining against the never complain, never explain motto. I still think that if it stays, it needs an overhaul rewrite. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This again? We have already decided to keep the article, I don't know, three days ago. Subject to the comments provided, the article should be kept. The recent announcement regarding Kensington suggests that it is premature to initiate another deletion process. We should also avoid subjective judgments of notability. Additionally, notability is not temporary (as noted by User:Bait30 with WP:NTEMP), and media coverage surrounding the subject remains significant (and reliable!), encompassing various perspectives and responses. Therefore, the article's relevance persists. The argument of WP:NOTGOSSIP does not hold up. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and that is precisely what the article predominantly (if not entirely) relies on. The same applies to articles like Paul is dead, as mentioned by other users. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I suggest speedy keep per last AfD, as MicrobiologyMarcus and PK-WIKI wrote. The topic of "where is Kate", the photograph and related subjects still received significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The notability, or suitability, of the topic is not suddenly lost because of the diagnosis. Skyshifter   talk  19:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This didn't pass the 10 day test, let alone the 10 year test. Killuminator (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per Biographies of living persons and other policies. This should be covered appropriately in her own article. If an article about the social media/media furore is determined to be needed it should focus on that (including the title) not Kate herself. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per my previous rationale. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:47, 22 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. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as unsalvageable rubbish. Wikipedia should not document tasteless tabloid drivel. -- Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is not a valid argument for deletion. BappleBusiness[talk] 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the whole thing (absence, photo, speculation) were covered by RS fro a round the world. This wasn't limited to tabloids. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument is WP:NOTGOSSIP. Many generally reputable news sources run tabloid-y stories as well. Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no reason for this article to exist. Wikipedia exists as a summary of knowledge, not as a blow-by-blow account of media speculation, and the speculation surrounding Catherine's health can be summarised in a few sentences in the main article. See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article passes our notability requirements for a stand-alone article. It seems that many of the delete comments are actually objections to the name which isn't a valid deletion rationale, neither are the arguments that the page needs cleanup or is otherwise deficient in ways not related to notability... WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't valid deletion rationale either. I literally just got another push notification from CNN about the topic, we are so far over the GNG bar it isn't even funny. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell you how many pointless news notifications I get per day. As far as I know, none of those stories were made into their own articles (barring exceptions). Not exactly a trump card in a notability debate. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Like the previous AfD concluded, this isn't even really a notability debate, but rather about the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a notability discussion, if you want to discuss the scope of Wikipedia go somewhere else. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging users who participated on previous AfD. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - After Easter, these stories will be rendered moot. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite, as mentioned by other editors, the fact that Princess Catherine has been confirmed to have cancer does not negate the notability of the topic, and the article can and should serve as a lesson about conspiracies and media speculation.
 * Slamforeman (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Given the recent news, changing my !vote to merge, the mystery, which this article was really about, is solved, and the media/PR fuss is now clearly secondary to the cancer diagnosis, both of which belong in the main Kate article. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Belong there... But given length restrictions can't be covered there in due detail so need a standalone page. The mystery being "solved" makes it more notable not less and note that the cancer diagnosis is part of the mystery... Not the other way around, the diagnosis is secondary to the media/PR fuss. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it should be deleted now that the announcement has been made it never had a purpose to exist. Wikipedia guidance is clear about non lasting topics being made into articles. 71.7.195.204 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit. Particularly edit to be more focused on the Mothers Day photo section as it is relevant to the relationship between trust and truth between institutions. Also, the news was just released 2 hours ago. Let's learn here to practice taking a second (a couple of days) to let the dust settle, beforehand editing, adding minutae, and/or jumping to decisions.
 * Cibrian209 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete and I'm honestly surprised the previous AFD kept it in the first place. Loki (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge a short summary into the bio article, but then I would agree with deletion and salting this as a redirect (potentially with admin protection). It was a BLP problem to start with, and now that its been confirmed she was trying to check on her health, all this gossip, speculation, and nonsense should not be on WP (shouldn't have been in the first place). --M asem (t) 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect, keep a very brief mention as appropriate at her page; the photoshop incident is hard to forget.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and procedural close Lots of people emoting rather than thinking here. The era of this subject being "missing" may be incorporated into a larger and/or very different article on the whole thing someday, but just because a disclosure has been made does not mean the RS that went into the pre-cancer-announcement article suddenly vanished. I fully grant that a very different article will likely evolve over the next year, probably at a different title, but no DEL#REASON applies to this article, AfD just kept it, and DRV is sustaining the close. Thus, a new AfD is inappropriate. Having said that, collaboratively working on a better article, rather than trying to force AfD to provide a desired outcome, is certainly appropriate. (For the record, I'm in favor of not covering news events less than three months old, perhaps up to a year, to avoid problems like this. But I don't make the rules, so here we are) Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's polite, correct, or an expression of good faith to say that Delete !voters are "emoting rather than thinking" here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Violation of WP:BLP. Violation of WP:GOSSIP. Even if it is top level news sources doing the celebrity gossip, it is still celebrity gossip nonetheless. And gossip based on pure speculation and not evidence, the worst kind of gossip WP:NOT policy violation. The article should never have been allowed in the first place as a split from the primary biographical subject. I think those voting Keep above, all of them, including the ones I know and am ostensibly friends with, should be ashamed of themselves. Silver  seren C 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to avoid inflammatory remarks stating that those with a different perspective "should be ashamed of themselves". I recommend striking that sentence - the focus should be on the article, not the editors. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I said the same thing at BLPN and I stand by my statement. The article only continues to exist because of editors purposefully ignoring WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy. Silver  seren C 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These new comments are even more inflammatory than the last ones. Surely you are not suggesting that editors who voted keep are "purposefully ignoring WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy"? Because I voted keep and I'm not ignoring either (either purposefully or subconsciously), so it not only looks both like a personal attack and false. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic tabloid speculation that directly harms the BLP subject. Fails SUSTAINED, NOTNEWS, NEVENT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * delete per all arguments above. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can people please explain the reason of deleting this page, after reviewing discussions? Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The whole thing got extensive coverage by reliable sources. Anyone who calls this tabloid drama clearly didn't have a look at the reference section. Maybe the focus of this article should be the handling and coverage of the drama instead of the drama itself, but AfD isn't cleanup.
 * Delete: per NOTGOSSIP. not a notable event. Drowssap  SMM  20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep First, if I ever participated in the previous AfD discussion I may suggest weak keep or re-write, but since this discussion opens just hours after the Kensington announcement I believe it's still far from the ripe time for another deletion process. As has been noted above, we should give due respect to the criteria of WP:NOTCLEANUP and avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, excuse my French, but I just find a morbid fascination of "truth by tasteful press" when talking about notability, while in real life so many huge transformations start from civil gossips and conspiracies. Here I'll just cite my statement in another talk page the other day (with a little bit changes): Despite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Wikipedia editors have been continuously contributing opinions, tabloid gossips and conspiracies. Who other then the Grammy committee member can safely say that the Grammys biased against SZA or Kendrick Lamar, even though the bias may be statiscally persuasive? Yet talking about accusations of racial bias in Grammy Awards, it's no doubt appropriate to include such "baseless" accusations. Back to our subject here, when we're talking about a social issue that already runs out of Kensington's control, whether and to what extent we should accept all these gossips should at least partially depend on how much due weight should be given, ie the interest of accepting this article (hot topics like social media, mass psychology, British monarchy's declining popularity etc.) compared with not accepting it (privacy, potential loss of fame etc.) Therefore I can't agree with the idea that this is either a notability issue or a "scope of Wikipedia" one. The two prongs of criteria should have been inextricably related. Jason211pacem (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was already agreed upon in the previous AFD discussion that this is notable. The media ordeal was in very poor taste, especially given her diagnosis, but that doesn't negate the notability. (I think the title should be reconsidered, though). Estreyeria (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To stress, WP:N is only a necessary condition for a standalone article, but it is not a guarentee of one, as other policies like NOT or BLP may caution against such. That's exactly the case here - the coverage may have been notable (though its arguably also a burst of coverage which fails NEVENT) but havign a separate page for that much speculation and gossip fails other policies. — M asem (t) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete and rewrite I'm of the opinion that it needs the application of some WP:TNT. The article as it is focuses too heavily on the rumors and conspiracy theories, when it could focus on harder facts. (She had an operation, she was recovering, photo was released, photo impact and alleged medical records data breach, cancer diagnosis) While I would like a merge, the likely length would become far too long and the changes the the relationship between Kensington Palace and media organizations should be covered as part of the photo, which would likely be out of place at Catherine, Princess of Wales. While yes, WP:TNT and AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, both are essays, and it's likely the easiest way to deal with the article.
 * I've previously found a lot of the deletion arguments unconvincing, merely stating that they belive it is tabloid gossip without pointing at an exact issue, when it's reciving coverage from major reputable media organizations, it's expanded out of the tabloids and there are hard facts that are addressed. Trying to assess the 10 year impact of current events is nearly impossible, none of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and knowing outright that it won't be of any interest in 10 years is impossible. Shaws username  .  talk  . 21:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why cannot the page be rewritten while not deleted? Be WP:BOLD and rewrite it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. The media speculation that occurred was still notable. Reliable sources weren't just covering Kate's whereabouts. They were covering all the responses, speculation from other sources, and even covering how other reliable sources were covering this whole deal.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've gone through the article and tried to reorganise and trim it, in a way that hopefully meets some of the concerns in this and the previous AfD. Comments, further edits, and reverts appreciated. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Silver seren. I've written a lot of breaking news nonsense and pop culture crap in my time but this really was appalling. This was a massive violation of BLP egged on my the worst elements of online gossip. Having said that, the fall out from the photograph should guarantee its notability a la Anne of Cleves. The Royals are a unique breed, article generating machines from birth, but we should all have been stronger here on Wiki and acted with the decorum that earns our keep in our virtual ivory towers and not been blinded by the hall of mirrors. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This was always a junk fork for a bunch of gossip and speculation regarding a celebrity. WP:NOTGOSSIP applied and now that the reason for her absence from media is revealed I think the best course of action is to merge in what little material is appropriate for Wikipedia to her article and discard the chaff. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. While the incident has received wide media coverage, the form of content in this article is just not encyclopedic enough to justify a whole article just by itself. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tutwakhamoe, what item of WP:NOTNEWS are you referring to? RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. In light of the news of the more important issue of her diagnosis, the whole premature media frenzy seems like it may fail WP:10YEARTEST.98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article does pass the WP:10YEARTEST. The media and social media will look back on this as a reason not to speculate and propagate conspiracy theories with front-page mainstream, back-to-back coverage of discussions when a public figure is absent. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify or merge, At the moment right now, it is uncertain if it will remain relevant. Between Charles III and Kate, maybe in a month or so, we might be able to rewrite it to become 2024 health issues for the Windsor family. Otherwise, just incorporate this article into her biography. ✶Qux  yz  ✶  22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the same reason as earlier. The disappearance of the Princess is inherently notable as she is a member of a royal family. The new video by an organisation which has already provided spurious material doesn't change that much. Many are already having doubts about it and the situation will only get clarified in the following days and weeks. In any case, the event has been extensively covered by reliable sources and will continue to be talked about. It is unhealthy to pretend nothing happened. The article may need to be rewritten, but the previous closure was fully justified and it is a bad form to open another one so soon even before the dust has settled. -TadejM my talk 22:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural close The article is already subject to an ongoing deletion review. We should not have two discussions open at the same time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete — The speculative bubble has burst; the froth has receded; the mystery is no more. The substance of the issue is discussed at the Kate page.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia BLP Policy Question. How are articles like 	Conspiracy theory about Vladimir Putin's body doubles and Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death allowed? Also how is article Larries allowed too? If the logic in this Where is Kate? discussion is applied, those three articles should also be deleted. They speculate and contain conspiracy theories (and commentary of) the health and sexuality of living people. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete — Following the cancer diagnosis, if Wikipedia ever had any aspersions to be taken seriously then it would remove such tacky, tabloidesque fluff and have some class and deal with the diagnosis in an appropriate way and show some decency.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:26, 22 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.