Deletion of Wedding dress of Kate Middleton

Comment: Many of the comments that have been posted already just seem to be trying to make notability assumptions and judgements about something related to a current event that happened less than 24 hours ago. That is not sufficient time. IMO. I suggest that this discussion be tabled and closed to a Keep, and as per #Suggestions for dealing with recentism we wait until a later date when the editing on all these articles about the wedding have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: per Resolute above. I was editing the wedding article during the event, since the dress section needed reformatting, and I don't see how this needs its own article. So it gets lots of hits? So does anything |recent. Ask yourself, what will Wikipedia need to say about her dress a year from now? When William's parents were married certainly there would have been as much to say. But all we have thirty years later is Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer#Clothing|one short graf.I suggest we can have a simple section in this article, to cover the dress, https://www.facebook.com/pages/Princess-Beatrices-ridiculous-Royal-Wedding-hat/203705509669392 Princess Beatrice's hat, William's outfit and anything else sartorially of note from today's festivities
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: To me, if a subject is covered by sufficiant notable sources and meets  then theres nothing wrong with having a page on it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per , and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: and merge. The one article on the wedding is enough. Yes, the wedding is notable but we don't need to be splitting aspects off into separate articles such as the dress. This article and issue applies in ways to  and  as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per , this topic is notable, since it "has received  "significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject."  There is too much information here to merge it into the other articles (and it will get longer), although they can and do summarize it.  This seems to be using  the way Wikipedia is intended to be used.  Further, this topic is appropriate for coverage in this encyclopedia because the dress has had an impact on the fashion industry and is the subject of much analysis and commentary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:summary style)

Comment: I've seen some pretty retarded articles around here over the years, from Michelle Obama's arms to Yul Brynner's bald pate, but this tripe gives them a run for their money.  Simply being "in the news" is not the only criteria to create a wikipedia article, that is why we have safeguards such as .  A notable event of this magnitude is bound to have many side stories of quirky/irrelevant interest as the 24/7 drive-by media begins to run out of things to talk about and they cast about for some filler.  This reminds me of every Thanksgiving when we get a full rundown...in many, many media outlets...of what is on the White House dinner table.  Reliably sourced?  Sure.  Encyclopedic?  Not so much.  Mention it in the main article, but there's no call to devote encyclopedia treatment to a flippin dress
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton where the wedding cake and wedding ring can be found. I know  is for people ''notable for only one event'', but I think it suits here as well. My only concern is  which states "''others (events) generate such mainstream coverage that the key people, or companies, or products, or places, or other names become separately notable, as almost household names for the general public.''". However, it also states "''some highly publicized events have made the key participants instantly notable, due to having a major role or impact in the event.''" I'm yet to see the major role or impact of the wedding dress alone to this wedding
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIGEVENT)

Comment: dress has generated quite a lot of discussion around the world (), and I'm sure this could probably end up as quite a good article given the coverage and wealth of references. The main wedding article is already quite long, so I don't see the harm this article can do. Once the coverage has died down we can see if it deserves to stay then
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The topic clearly has enormous notability and so our |editing policy is to keep this material.  Note also the Foundation's concern that there is insufficient participation by women in Wikipedia.  We have here a computer gamer - creator of articles such as List of Dungeons & Dragons deities - trying to delete a fashion article which is of great interest to millions of women.{{fact|date=April 2011}}  This seems to be a case of improper |bias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:BIAS)

Comment: Has to be a keep, clearly notable, the only other alternative is merge, but give the size of Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton (at the time of posting this ~80k) and consulting  it would require hefty editing down or would just end up being split back off again. As for claims of  and ; on more than one occasion on the telecast did observers say that the dress will shape wedding dresses for the years to come, so lets review this in 1 years time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZERULE||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly meets the . Indications (from reliable sources) are that the dress will have lasting coverage (also see :Category:Royal wedding dresses). At this point in time, how ca we know if the topic won't having lasting notability (although the indications are that it will). In any case, this can be revisited in a few months, in the unlikely event that the coverage isn't lasting. I second Chzz's call for a SNOW keep closure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: clearly abundantly |notable, and quite ridiculous to claim otherwise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''merge''' to the main article on the wedding per . High profile events like this one will necessarily result in extensive news coverage of details. This doesn't mean those details are encyclopedic, as they don't have any long term notability. What needs to be said about the dress can be said in the main article on the wedding
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)