Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wedding guests of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

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

The result was Keep. A good case has been made that the subject of the guests to the marriage is notable in itself, appropriately specific to guide editorial determination of those to include, and that this notability by its specificity goes beyond that of regular news events. A legitimate encyclopedic interest in having a separate article has also been brought forward, in that it is important for the proper encyclopedic coverage of the wedding, yet cannot reasonably be fully covered in the main article due to size constraints, though that may have to be determined at the editorial level. While in normal circumstances the AFD should be closed after seven days, the fact is that the marriage will start soon, which will bring a considerable traffic and prevent a proper, reasoned debate on the issue (many comments already are not helpful at assessing consensus). Therefore, as this AFD if allowed to follow its course would be highly unlikely to reach consensus for a decision other than keeping, I've closed the debate early according to the current state of consensus. Cenarium (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding guests of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The wedding is notable enough, this list isn't. Consensus among the people I asked is that this should go. Fancruft might apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTDIR. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Doh5678 Talk 00:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sink it. Not a state occasion, and as Sven says, the wedding is notable. The list of toffs attending it however, is most definitely not. We're not Who's who or OK!. Fish^Barking? 00:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is well referenced, and the references indicate the notability. That is - who is attending is consistently reported around the world. StAnselm (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that's not true. That it has sources means that it could be notable, not that it actually is notable. This is tabloid faire, not encyclopedic faire. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) and as DQ has stated: WP:NOTDIR. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Unencyclopaedic trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; WP:N passed, WP:NOT#NEWS, not so much. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per all those things everyone else linked; things related to notable things aren't inherently notable, but even if they are, Wikipedia ain't a relational database of otherwise completely unrelated things.... okay, technically it is, but the articles... er... I'll shut up now. ~ Isarra (talk) (stalk) 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per everyone above. This wouldn't even work as a category: after all, is attending someone else's wedding really an event important enough that someone would be defined by it? --NellieBly (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How is this useful in any way? It's a list merely for the purpose of creating a list. Of course, domestic and foreign dignitaries are going to attend a royal wedding; which royal wedding isn't? How is this relevant to the wedding itself? It's not. –MuZemike 03:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Utterly random subject. Why not List of people who sat in the grandstands at the 2011 Masters Tournament? Carrite (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there are heaps of articles on who's invited to this wedding, but none about who was in the grandstands at the Masters, suggests that your analogy is flawed, doesn't it? Axlrosen (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! 1) The article is highly notable. The invited guests are per definition an important part of the royal wedding and will be extensively shown and referred to by the commentators on television. Who is attending the wedding is therefore important additional information, and many papers around the world do find this also notable, including the serious papers. Who are we to denounce this view? Sounds like Wikipedia elitism. 2) Many comments and votes above, like "This is tabloid faire", are obviously Wikipedia:POV and based on it. 3) Furthermore, the article is well referenced and only the confirmed sources are included. 4) Articles about other royal weddings also do have an extensive guest list included, see for example Blessing guest list of wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles or List of guests at wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have defeated your own keep vote. Both of those are sections within the articles on the events themselves, and both of them are extreme subsets of the total guess list, the most notable among notable, mainly royalty and Viceroys. This, as an article on it's own, is not selected for notability nearly as closely, and is its own page. Therefore, your examples and the subject of this AfD are totally different. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that is debatable and I don’t agree. 1) Please remember, it is not politics here on Wikipedia, do not aggressively disqualify every alternative view. The existence of a list per se is debated here, hence the "consideration for deletion". 2) But if you don't agree with only some of its content, than it should debated what and how it should be altered, and not its entire deletion. Than you should have started a discussion on the talk page of the article, and not starting a whole deletion campaign. 4) Or if you agree with the existence of the content, but not as a separate article, than you should have started a "merge" campaign to merge it with the main article, not the obliteration of its entire content. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it's not a zero sum game, and I know my options when it comes to deletions. I happen to think those lists you've shown me are just as bad and should go as well, however I was stating what it is, not what I believe it should be, in my refutation of your argument. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I doubt whether you thought it through about the options when it comes to deletions. I think that starting this deletion procedure is way too blunt and extreme in my opinion. An alternative, as maybe discussing about a merge or a discussion on the talk page for some alterations, would be a much more refined approach. The problem is that some people here on Wikipedia jump much too easy to the deletion procedure; but most of the times it was unnecessary, and it creates a lot of hassle leading to WP:BUREAUCRACY. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia per WP:NOTDIR.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Boring royaltycruft, but that's not in itself a reason to delete. Given the exaggerated attention that royal weddings receive and given the excellent state of referencing, I don't see a reason to delete at this moment. Certainly the information in the article should to be preserved for the benefit of the editors of the main wedding article, so if consensus here is to delete, I suggest the alternative to move to a talk subpage of the main wedding article. —Кузьма^討論 08:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree with your conclusion and with your suggestion. There is a lot attention for the royal weddings and its guests, unfair or not. But as an alternative, it could be merged with the main article, exactly what I suggested as well. But that’s unfortunately not what is the case here. The deletion procedure was started to completely erase the article and content, but it is based on POV. See for example the derogatory remarks as below, like "toffs having a day out at the expense of the British taxpayer" or above like "tabloid faire", which are totally biased in my opinion. Exaggerated attention by the media and the social mass, a dislike for royals, or pompous behaviour by celebrities, are not reasons for delete. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete trivia. Or possibly rename to List of toffs having a day out at the expense of the British taxpayer, while the country goes down the crapper. Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in the fact that it serves as a good comparison between the guest list of a state and non-state wedding. However, it would be more worthwhile if it were complete. It's definitely better as a separate page rather than attempting to compress it into the main page. Bthebest (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Delete. Notability is not inherited by attending a notable wedding. If any of the guests are notable I am certain they already have Wikipedia articles. Moreover, it is unlikely to ever be a thorough or complete list.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important event, important in comparison to other important Royal weddings --Henning M (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize this isn't an AfD for the wedding, this is the guest list? Also, there are no similar lists to compare this to, the best you're going to get are very partial lists in the bodies of the articles for the other weddings themselves? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since this information is important enough to be reported in numerous sources - newspaper articles and books - it is important enough to include in a general article on the wedding, but since that article is already longish, it is reasonable to create a separate article for this information. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's definitely notable. The guest list has been covered in the UK & US media. As for its necessity, even the article on the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria included the guest list. Since the article on the wedding itself is so long, it would be better to have a separate guest list article. - Yk (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not an appropriate list for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. The list includes some notable people and many utterly nonnotable people, who cannot inherit notability by turning up on a guest list for some trivial reason (friend of a friend, or whatever). Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not always mirror all information which is covered in newspapers. Edison (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is something definitely to keep. Baseball Watcher 20:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. I suspect that the length of this article (if not the list itself), in terms of sources, could be reduced significantly by relying on the guest list published by the official source, rather than on dozens of scattered media articles. This list alone could supply a large number of the names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, merge, or redirect in some form. The article traffic clearly indicates that there should be some way of accessing this information from Wikipedia, albeit not necessarily in this format or in a separate article. In other words, I recommend not deleting this article, but I'm not yet sure exactly what should be done with it yet. I note that we will probably have access to a more reliable, and final, list of guests by the time this AfD is scheduled to end. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A list of who attended a wedding, as famous as the couple may be, is not in the slightest bit notable. This is gossipy trivia. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki/sort of - In its current state it is not suitable for being transwikied to Wikisource, but the official guest list would be suitable to be placed there. Carolina wren (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the list is kept, what ontological purpose will it serve except to show who still tugs their forelocks? Royaltycruft, as per above. WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTNEWS; --Whiteguru (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe it will be of even more interest in the future than it is now. Deb (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a major royal wedding and it will broadcast live at over 2.2 billion people. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How is this article even Notable? Came to this article from Google News. --33rogers (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no precedent for, nor requirement to include, the guest list of a private wedding on Wikipedia. I can find no existing Wiki policy to indicate that this article is notable enough to remain. I cannot find any justification for its inclusion. Wikipedia is not a site to dump indiscriminate information. This is, to be blunt, cruft. doktorb _words^deeds 18:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still kinda new here, so correct me if I'm wrong. I find the statement that an article needs to have some "justification for its inclusion" dangerous. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Keep unless you can justify that it doesn't belong here? pm (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not finding anything against this (WP:NOTWHOSWHO: most of the guests have an article; WP:NOTNEWS: not breaking news, not routine; WP:NOTDIR: these are not "loosely associated topics" nor "cross-categorizations"). It has several reliable sources and parent article is notable. When in doubt, keep. pm (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an illuminating list and will in time become a valuable resource tool for historians. 67.121.224.217 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is averaging around 9000 hits per day for the past five days. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a notable feature of the wedding, and it harms no one b having it here. 201.173.161.147 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "List of dignitaries at the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton." In addition to [User:Personalmountain|Personalmountain]]'s great comment above, I'd also like to note that this article immediately reminded me of the well-done List of dignitaries at the funeral of Pope John Paul II article. I know we've got a phobia here about recentism but I think we're safe here. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That example, + the fact that it's getting thousands of hits according to User:StAnselm, seals the deal about its notability. There are people who care about articles like this: List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales, and there are people who don't. The same goes for this article. - Yk (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Royal weddings happen once a generation, and the list of who gets invited and who doesn't is definitely noteworthy. Axlrosen (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Guest list is absolutely notable and helpful to create an indepth record of the royal wedding. Scanlan (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with User:Axlrosen's above remark. The report that HM Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa may not turn up due to trobel in Bahrain makes it even more important to.Wipsenade (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The wedding is a once-in-a-generation society event, a landmark in contemporary social history. The guest list is also notable politically. Deletion of the article would be ridiculous. Lachrie (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the best idea would be to Merge this with Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. That's how Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles and Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling treated the guest list. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I sort of agree, but think that this is an editorial decision best left to the editors of the main wedding article, depending on how long that ends up to be. Best to talk about it next year, though. —Кузьма^討論 17:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I think User:Qrsdogg has a posible way out.15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The fact that User:Lugnuts had earlier called it "List of toffs having a day out at the expense of the British taxpayer, while the country goes down the crapper" proves yet another reason why it should be kept or merged- it evokes strong royalist and republican feeling in the public.Wipsenade (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The calls for deletion are inherently political, in the sense that they reflect republican values, consciously or not. It's a problem of cultural awareness. Lachrie (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We really don't need that "toffs" redirect, so I just deleted it. —Кузьма^討論 17:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a poor joke. O.K., fair enough, it can go. :-)Wipsenade (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a highly notable event, and a list of people present is of interest to many people. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable event, with news covering the thousands of street parties people are having about it in England even. This list will be published throughout England, and will also be in the historical archives. Dream Focus 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When it gets down to it, our readers will want and expect this to be here at English Wikipedia. We are not here for ourselves alone, but to expand knowledge. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On balance, I feel this is a subject that readers will be interested in and should be kept. The wedding of the future king is an important event. Too many delete opinions above have clearly been given for political or ideological reasons. This is not the place to debate the relevance of the monarchy, but the relevance of this article and its value to our readers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would contend that many of the keep votes are political as well. Looking at this, the delete votes are arguing that this is a violation of WP:NOT, that coverage does not in and of itself establish notability, and are saying that notability is not inherited. The keep votes are claiming that the list is notable in and of itself, and that said notability trumps WP:NOT. There is a fair amount of "I don't like it" but it is canceled out by a fair amount of "I like it." What I find most disturbing in this is that there exist several ambiguously worded statements that lead me to believe that people are voting as if the article on the actual wedding, not the list of people going, is what is being put up for deletion in this thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The royal family is a political institution in Britain and the Commonwealth realms. People calling for deletion apparently aren't familiar with social history or prosopography: the study of the public careers and relationships of a group in a particular place and period; a collective biography. The guest list is a key component of that. We don't delete an article because some other people—non-social historians—don't necessarily find it useful or relevant or don't recognise the political and social significance of the event, most likely because they've grown accustomed to a republican system of government with inimical political values. Lachrie (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is completely useless. It could easily be merged with many other articles. This article is not important enough to deem its own page, and should therefore be deleted. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its already 43,648 bytes long. What other article could something this size be merged to? Dream Focus 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'useless argument' cannot be accepted here (WP:USELESS). Same goes for your vote here. - Yk (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I take that back. I do believe it is useful because there are a significant amount of people (which the media are all too happy to take advantage of) that are genuinely interested in this stuff. - Yk (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As much as i detest it, I cannot ignore that this is notable, the content is the source of news coverage worldwide.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no problem listing notable people attending the ceremony, like what is listed on Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles, Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling and others. What I DO have a problem is that the article is including every NON-notable friend of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Again, notability is not inherited and WP:ONEVENT. I doubt in ten-years from now, people are going to care that the couple's former neighbor, Middleton's high school boyfriend, or Prince William's childhood friend since prep school attended their wedding. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, because this is related to an ongoing current event, I recommend that this AFD be tabled to a keep for now, and excise the recentism at a later date. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This may belong, perhaps, on some other site somewhere -- a blog or personal site, but definitely not Wikipedia. The notable guests can be incoprporated in an article on the wedding, as suggested above, but the guest list alone as an article by itself does not belong on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the wedding itself may be notable, but the full recital of the guest-list is not -- it is blatantly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the list itself is highly selective and has its own political significance; it's a valuable reference for prosopography. Lachrie (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (i) As Prince william is not the heir apparent, the "political significance" is minimal. (ii) anybody doing serious research on the prosopography of the wedding should be working off the official guest list, not Wikipedia's half-baked reconstruction. (iii) A list that includes the "grandchildren of the Queen's former racing manager" and assorted childhood friends, ex-boyfriends, etc, etc is hardly "selective". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to have a wider definition of politics. The royal family is a major sociopolitical institution in its own right, related to but distinct from the constitutional role of the monarch, and this is its most important public event in a generation. The guest list is inherently selective, and the selection of guests by cohort and occupation offers useful information about peer groupings and political connections, which can also be analysed in terms of the general taxonomy of class and social inclusion/exclusion. A Wikipedia entry obviously makes such reference material more generally accessible. Not everybody is going to have easy or immediate access to official sources, which are also potentially much less informative. Lachrie (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (i) If you take a "wide[ enough] definition of politics", just about anything "is a major sociopolitical institution in its own right". (ii) No, "its most important public event in a generation" will be when Prince Harry gets married -- even assuming that what is important to it is actually important to Wikipedia. (iii) The purpose of Wikipedia is not to engage in WP:OR on the topic of "peer groupings and political connections, ... analysed in terms of the general taxonomy of class and social inclusion/exclusion". (iv) Nobody in their right mind would use something as inherently unstable and unreliable as Wikipedia as the basis for research (except of course into the dynamics of Wikipedia itself). Last I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopaedia and a tertiary source, not a repository for guestlists, or other primary-datasets. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid that's just a string of logical and material fallacies. Not every socio-political institution could be considered equally important in every context, or the concept of importance would itself lose content, but any socio-political institution is potentially a valid subject for investigation by historians and sociologists, and the royal family clearly is a subject of general interest with national and international importance. Prince Harry is the second son so his marriage will be a secondary affair compared to Prince William's. No original research is attempted in the article, but that obviously doesn't mean the article can't be used by the general public as a work of reference for such research; that's its entire purpose, the same as any Wikipedia article. The responsibility of contributors is to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible, using reliable sources which can provide such analysis for us, not to pretend that reliability itself is impossible or cite unattainable perfection as an excuse to exclude the imperfect, otherwise there wouldn't be much point contributing to any article at all. Lachrie (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (i) Apologies for getting the two prinnies mixed up. (ii) That lacking some external definition or yardstick, "the concept of importance would itself lose content" is exactly my point -- and you've yet to provide one that makes the internal politics of Buck House important in the wider scheme of things. (iii) Last I checked the "general public" did not engage in prosopographical research -- most wouldn't even know what the word means, let alone know the field's methodologies. (iv( The world, and particularly the internet, is filled with datasets that somebody might find useful -- but Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a repository for them, but rather to provide an encyclopaedia of articles. I'd suggest finding a complete guestlist & posting it to Wikisource. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The rationale for inclusion has been more than adequately established. The information is of general interest, as attested by the media coverage, and can also serve as a useful reference for specialists in relevant political, historical and sociological disciplines. That's much more than can be said for a great many articles on Wikipedia devoted to popular trivia. That the article would be improved by adding analysis of the list from reliable secondary sources is not an argument for its deletion, but rather for its improvement. Lachrie (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • (i) Actually, I would suspect that few, if any, media outlets gave detailed guestlists -- so no, notability has not been established (just because an event is notable doesn't mean its guestlist is). (ii) Wikipedia is not here to provide "a useful reference for specialists", but rather an encyclopaedia for the general public. Standard statistical tables, tables of formulae, etc, etc are also "a useful reference for specialists" -- but that does not mean that Wikipedia should be a repository for them. (iii) Lack of secondary-source analysis does raise the question of WP:IINFO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we getting a bit immodest here?82.18.205.76 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, none of these objections hold up. In fact, lots of media outlets have commented on the guest list; that's how the article has been sourced. The wedding is a historic event; the guest list has been discussed in the media for months, it is an item of interest in its own right. Again, to say that the article would benefit from the inclusion of more sourced analysis is not a valid argument for its deletion. And obviously, Wikipedia is here to provide a useful reference for both the general public and specialists; the two are not mutually exclusive; some specialist topics, like this one, are also of general interest; it's simply nonsensical to suggest otherwise. Lachrie (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We're encyclopedia and we serve world with knowledge. This list is notable enough, well referenced and people interested in it [with 82,750 views in the last 30 days]. I don't think we've any loss in retaining this type of article. --Bill william compton^Talk 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The topic is notable, but do the guests have the collective notability to stand alone or should the list be added to the main article? I personally would vote for a full merge.82.18.205.76 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 82,750 views is a lot.Wipsenade (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 82,750 views are notable82.18.205.76 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Merge Regardless of the number of views, it stems from the fact that this list is linked from the wedding page itself; without that link, the guest list itself would not have nearly as many views. As such, it should really be included in the page with the event itself. That said, I would vote to keep a list of invited guests who actually attended the wedding, but as of today (26 April 2011), that point is moot. Kenneth E Fannon 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kefannon (talk • contribs)
          • The fact that the page is linked from Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton doesn't invalidate the number of views as a sign of notability. After all, the relative traffic of the two pages suggests that a significant percentage of the people interested in the wedding are also interested in the guest list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm a British Republican and I can't stand the Monarchy, I won't be watching it on TV; however I believe this article to be notable. It is notable encyclopaedic information to mention which High Profile Guests are attending/ declined the invitation. Also we have guest lists for other royal weddings too, so this isn't a first and I think it is absolute bollocks to label this article as trivia. This is a significant social and cultural event, should we mention which bands and music acts took participated in music festivals; music festivals are arguably social-cultural events yet we have articles regarding who played at them. It is almost like some people aren't happy unless they're complaining. IJA (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More important than a list of Pokemon.Jaque Hammer (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Once every thirty years or so...andycjp (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although I myself am a Canadian republican, I must admit that the attention that this guest list has been receiving makes it at least somewhat notable. User:Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Seems to lack independent notability, and trangresses WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#NEWS. Serious thought should be given at the Royal Wedding page as to whose attendance is notable and whose is not; this is not the same as which attendees are notable. Note that most highly significant scheduled events (say the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony or the 2010 Oscars) are attended by numerous notable people, and many of them may receive press coverage while doing so (there are whole shows devoted to the Oscars' red carpet entrances, but these do not magically make them significant.--Carwil (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Too many sources for a start could be done with one souce which means a brief summery could go on the main article with a link the the BBC website (which seems to have a pernament mini website for the event, thus non moving pages!) for people wanting to know this trival info. Mean does wiki need to note the precence of a couple of rugby players and mr and mrs Beckham? 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Biff Al welcu.86.29.65.8 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a standalone article, this doesn't work. But it isn't a standalone article, it's a section forked from the Wedding article - and, as such, it's reasonable to keep. Certainly, the sources available support notability for the event and the list both. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Keep God save the Queen! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list might have been spun out of the main article simply so it doesn't have WP:UNDUE-weight on the overall article. There are other instances of lists which come to mind such as the U.S. (presidential) inauguration guest lists. CaribDigita (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Duper Strongest Yotta-Keep Article is about notable guests in the notable wedding of notable persons. Passes WP:RS and WP:N. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major event on a world level and some republicans and anti-monarchists want to delete a well referenced guest list?! If Wiki is about expanding knowledge keep this unless, somehow, Wiki is suddenly running out of space?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume good faith. --Reference Desker (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• *keep* — typical cluster-fuck on teh wiki concerning an imminent event. 125.162.150.88 (talk)

  NOTE: The above entry by 125.162.150.88 (talk) is vandalism and gibberish. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ma'af, i meant nuke from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. per sven. 125.162.150.88 (talk)

• Keep - The only record I can find of the complete guest-list Kiltpin (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per reasoning by User:Sven Manguard, who said it quite succinctly. The more notable or infamous guests can and certainly will be included in the wedding article, which will almost definitely be created after the wedding, if it hasn't been already. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In any other occasion I would have said Delete. But not here. This is an major event in the world of royals. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfDcruft if anything. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Definitly passes the required notability needed. A world event tomorrow that will have a impact for decades to come in the UK. The guestlist to that kind of event is in fact notable.--HelloKitta (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is as notable as a lot of the other crap on Wikipedia like cartoon characters and baseball game scores.Eregli bob (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Someone must be out of their mind or they hate Britain and its royal family to think it should be deleted. It must be kept because tomorrow is the biggest event of the year!

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page a AfD page one of those from the Uncyclopedia or what?82.27.24.135 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the existence of other "List of Dignitaries at..." lists, those for the funerals of JFK and John Paul II coming to mind immediately.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.