Deletion of Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination)

Comment: Clearly passes  and notability guidelines, and the article itself is well written.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/82.26.4.37|82.26.4.37
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE)

Comment: The closer should note that at some point the article was slapped with the {Rescue} tag by Colonel Warden, so this is as good a time as any to remind people commenting here that simplistic proof by assertion, or copying and pasting the wording of the GNG is not how you properly argue keep in an Afd. And if anybody needs help, from either side, you should read #How to discuss an Afd|this and |this. If people want to claim sources show x, y, or z, you are actually expected to give at least a sample of the sources to which you refer. People aren't mind readers, they cannot simply guess what type of source you think is reliable, or what you think is evidence of significant in depth coverage of a topic independent of other topics. And it would also help if people restricted themselves to countering arguments that were actually made in the nomination - to take just one of the latest for example, I never even mentioned the word 'career', so I can hardly have my rationale invalidated by what followed on that basis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:ATA)

Comment: Being someone's sister is |not notable - all the "coverage" is about the wedding
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: The topic is notable and so it is our |editing policy to keep the sourced information.  The reasons why the topic is notable are mostly irrelevant but sources such as the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8484342/Royal-wedding-Pippa-Middleton-shines-as-maid-of-honour.html Daily Telegraph indicate that she has significant status as "the most eligible woman in the world
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Seriously, at least three newspapers I've read have reported about her involvement as Kate's bridesmaid (and beyond). Any other person mentioned by 3 newspapers will have their articles on Wikipedia kept.See expanded rationale below. I don't see how the nominator's  rationale apply to this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: She is now notable in her own right, and satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Clearly passes  and notability guidelines, and the article itself is in great shape. What's the problem? Special:Contributions/110.47.110.233|110.47.110.233
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE)

Comment: Firstly I agree that the article is not up to standard. Secondly her sister being Kate is a debatable justification for notability. Despite this, as indirectly stated above, the fact remains that she played a central role (Bridesmaid|Maid of Honour) at an event (Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton|Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton) that was estimated to have been watched on TV by 2 billion peoplehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204443433487336.html, not to mention those watching or participating via various internet media. This alone makes her |independently notable in her own right. The fact that she gained the position of maid of honour (And the associated notability) because it was her sister's wedding is irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and a  to the nominator: the first AfD was shot down; there's many times more coverage of Pippa Middleton now than there was then, and this nomination is absurd. The forwarded argument for deletion is that she is not herself notable because her sister is actually the notable one. But the fallacy in that argument is easy to see: in the same way, her sister must not be notable either because she has merely inherited notability from her more famous husband. And he in turn has merely inherited his notability from his more famous father, who in turn ... and so on. It is true you do not attain notability ''merely'' by virtue of being connected to someone notable, but that does not ''prevent'' you from attaining notability of your own, even if that connection is what kick started it. The media is now full of articles about Pippa Middleton and she is now notable in her own right. In the last AfD I quoted the Daily Mail; the nominator has conventiently tried to exclude that report. Try instead this report from CBS that she is now considered http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-32917_162-20058721-10391716.html "England's most notable bachelorette" instead. Or one of the other thousands of reports worldwide about her, if you would prefer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: Certainly seems to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Clearly satisfying the criterion |"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  A half-page article specifically about her in today's ''Sunday Telegraph'', for example.  Why she's notable is irrelevant: the fact is that, by our criteria, she is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)