Deletion of List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton

Comment: Has already survived one recent AfD discussion. Dont see why it should be deleted. Not when considering that the List got international attention has Syria for example was first invited an´d then barred from attending the ceremony for example. Also I am so tired of people using the  as a reason for deletion, when infact Wikipedia IS news and IS built on news. I say Keep anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per nomination, and per , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: Yes, it's silly, but the British seem to like such silliness and have covered it in depth, so it's notable.  allows us to keep notable and sourced silly content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: The subject has received ample coverage in reliable sources to allow a |verifiable and |reliable list to be created on the topic.  In terms of notability,  applies just as strongly as ANYTHINGELSE; if reliable sources exist for List of people who ate dinner at the restaurant on top of the Seattle Space Needle on New Years Day, 2011, to use the example suggested above, then yes, that article is also welcome in our digital encyclopedia.  Notability here is ''indeed'' INHERITED|not inherited: it stands on its own merits. Inherited notability is invoked to allow a topic which does ''not'' have its own reliable sources to nonetheless meet the notability guidelines; this |topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; that is the ''definition'' of a topic that meets our standard for inclusion in its own right.  I'd consider it no less appropriate a topic than Boston Reds (1890–1891) all-time roster|a list of people who played in a sports team for one year 120 years ago, List of Yukon Quest competitors|a list of people who participated in (but did not necessarily win) a dog sled race, or List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers|a list of everyone who is a member of a college fraternity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:NOT||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG)

Comment: The wedding guest list is of fairly major historical/social/diplomatic/political significance, is well sourced, and was the subject of an incredible amount of speculation, both before and after its presentation to the public. Irrespective of , this is clearly a case where keeping this data serves the public and Wikipedia. Furthermore, I note the last AfD was recent, and that DRV endorsed the close, which makes this nom a little impolite and against previous consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: I agree with Sven that this needs to be considered again, as I stated at the DRV.  Furthermore, I simply do not see this as a notable encyclopedic topic.  Though there was some coverage of individuals who were invited or not, that coverage is and can be noted at the main article, within the narrow confines provided by the |undue weight clause.  There simply isn't coverage that would speak to the notability of the list as a whole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Given the recent result of '''Keep''', this immediate renomination is disruptive per .  There is no case for deletion because this is obviously a spinoff from the main article about the wedding and so the worst case is merger into that article per our |editing policy.  If anyone should doubt the notability of the topic, here is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13175842 one of many reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD||WP:PRESERVE)