Talk:Carole Middleton/Archives/2014

Untitled

Source added showing notable coverage in nation news paper. Article in progress

Contested deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to redirect (11-5) to Middleton family to avoid duplicated content, which has already been merged, but with no prejudice against this article being recreated from the redirect should significant further information become available. Bob talk 13:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

---

This page should not be speedy deleted because... She is famous to 2 billion people who viewed the weeding and is frequenltly the subject of articles in her own right.--Nirame (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't speediable but she isn't notable in her own right I don't think. I would merge it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

maybe merge her pippa and james etc into the middleton family or similar.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

She's notable in her own right thus she needs her own page. -- LeoDavid (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would merge into an article on the Middleton family including her father.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge. Merging into Middleton family is perfectly reasonable, both to avoid duplication and to prevent pseudo-biographies that give distorted views of their subjects. I support it. Hans Adler 22:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge - I don't think there's enough to say about her to justify a separate article. All these relatives can be covered perfectly well in a single article. Robofish (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - She is the mother of a future queen of the UK! Although there is not yet much to say about her, there is already enough about her and she is notable enough for a separate article. And undoubtedly this will be more in the future. There also exist other separate pages of mothers or fathers who are commoners and not famous, but who's pages exist because they are the parent of a future queen, see for example John Dalgleish Donaldson, Frances Shand Kydd, or Susan Barrantes. Furthermore, I even would argue that the Middleton family page itself should be deleted and split because the Middleton family as such as a House or Family is not notable enough (!) Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge - I broadly support Hans Adler's views on the matter. If the article becomes unwieldy, it can be broken up at a leter date. As an aside, may I suggest that the merged article be renamed "Ancestry and family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" which will provide a repositry for details of of Catherine's maternal and paternal ancestors. Martinvl (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support; minimal detail at this stage and, so, works better at the family article. Can be expanded later, potentially --Errant ^(chat!) 11:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge: As with Barack Obama's family, I think there should be something similar with the Duchess of Cambridge's family, no exclusive articles for her relatives; I think that is not 'encyclopedic'. --Gonzaloluengo (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not entirely understand you: there is a Family of Barack Obama page, but also several seperate pages about the family members (even the more distant!), for example the brother of the wife of Barack Obama, Craig Robinson, who is only a minor college basketball coach. To my opinion less notable, but yet his page exists and is even elaborate (!) with dull and unimportant information. So, why would that be notable, but instead not the page of Carole Elizabeth Middleton???? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Calling Craig Robinson a "minor college basketball coach" is the most ignorant comment I've seen. Hot Stop (c) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, along with all the other members that are not the duchess herself. This would be quite simple if there was no wedding fever. None of them are independently notable, but they do have enough coverage as the family of the duchess to warrant a list-type article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose' It is best to cover people separately because the scope of the article is then clearer and there is less risk of tainting coverage of one person with the doings of another. We have enough independent sources here to document this person specifically — her personal history and business career. Merging this content into another place would not achieve any useful purpose but would instead seem to be derogatory. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose' agree with Colonel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as this person's likely to be a grandmother of a future British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. If she becomes notable, we write an article then. We don't keep one because of likely future events, which might attract coverage.--Scott Mac 21:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, we'll avoid crystalling. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      • There is no crystal ball involved. Her daughter is in line to become the Queen of England. Now. Not in the future. Her daughter is in line to be the next Queen (Camilla will get some other title when Charles ascends) This makes the mother of the Duchess of Cambridge notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge - most of the info here is now available with more context on the Middleton family article. Her husband's article already links there, and after her marriage in 1980, there isn't a great deal of different material available (both parents have worked for their own company since 1987, their family information is essentially the same, etc). Could be resurrected later, but I propose to merge unless a lot more information is added. Bob talk 20:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge most of the info is relevant to the family not the individual, a merge allows it all to be kept together.--Scott Mac 21:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into the Middleton family article, per Scott. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge. She founded a multi-million dollar corporation. That makes her WP:notable. Her daughter is going to be the Queen. That makes her WP:notable. There is already one book about Kate Middleton's parents and how they got their money. Someone can read it and add material to this article. I.Casaubon (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into article about her family, she is not independently notable. Neutron (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's rather a strange, what would make her less notable in your opinion then her other family members, who are all evaluated as keep? Rather strange if considered that she has a a multi-million dollar corporation and is more notable then her son James William Middleton, who is also evaluated as keep. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.