Where is Kate?: TheSpacebook ( talk ) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete .  WP:TNT after recent diagnosis.  See also discussions at the previous AfD , DRV , and BLP noticeboard .  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What's changed since the previous AfD that closed a few days ago is that the cancer diagnosis has shifted the goalposts entirely.   The speculation merited an article for the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources it attracted, and there was (in my view) consensus expressed in the previous AfD to apply the WP:10YT in the fullness of time, likely eventually resulting in the article's merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales .   To me, the diagnosis means that the WP:10YT applies today , not in ten years' time.  We are effectively now talking about Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales , with all the speculation in the article as a background section.   That kind of article presents evident WP:BLP concerns, and is outside the scope of Wikipedia.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching ! vote to Neutral .  Having substantially reorganised and trimmed the article, I think an article focussed on the speculation or Mother's Day photograph could be viable without running into WP:BLP concerns, if it is treated as a historical documentation of the mass media interest/speculation leading up to today's sad announcement.   No doubt, further commentary will emerge over the coming hours about how awful said interest and speculation was.   But that means that, unless the speculation continues, the article's scope should stop with this evening's announcement and any further commentary offered on the speculation.  As the article's creator, one of its major editors, and the previous AfD nominator, I self-imposed a user topic ban on editing the article this morning, not expecting to work so much this evening on clean-up in case the article is kept.  It has become a timesink detracting from the reasons I started editing Wikipedia, and I'm conscious of the tortured responses the article has evoked on the BLP noticeboard , which is why I'm excusing myself from the AfD.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete or rewrite the article completely with a proper title This is clearly a WP:BLP issue.  We should not be scrutinizing the moves of a living person that is under going treatment for cancer.  Most of the article is speculation anyway and falls short of criteria set by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM .  Keivan.f Talk 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this is clearly a WP:BLP issue , and both the BLP noticeboard and DRV discussions highlighted that the BLP argument has struggled to specify exactly how this is a BLP issue: nobody, for example, has even quoted the relevant part of WP:BLP .   At the same time, I think it should be a BLP issue if it isn't, and there may be a case to open an RfC to more clearly draw lines.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : while it is unfortunate that someone has been diagnosed with cancer, the actual GNG analysis of this "event" and the coverage of the speculation conducted at the end of the last close is still valid (arguement for a speedy keep).  The article can be written to include (what will presumably be) the close of this saga.  Further, all the calls of the BLP violation don't actually identify a problem; and if there were one it could be remedied on the page by being challenged in the article or discussed on the talk page.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the witch hunt the woman was subjected to is indeed a notable event.  However, I think the article should be rewritten entirely if it were to be kept.  We need to remove all the speculation and unnecessary details and discuss the phenomenon itself, similar to Paul is dead .  Keivan.f Talk 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely.  The article will now naturally progress to the past tense and I'm sure there will be plenty of ink spilled by secondary sources about how this was a terrible thing to happen and to speculate on, and that can and should be added to the article as well.  The fact remians that we are at articles for deletion and we have no valid reason to delete this article, except for what appears to be a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT , seeing as the ink hadn't even dried from the first deletion nom, as evidenced by the fact that there was an ongoing WP:DRV at the time of the re-nomination.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re-write as a lesson for the media and social media on how NOT to treat public figures when they are recovering from surgery Regarding my extensive editing on the article, I did my best to keep it reliably sourced, neutral tone, and kept the widespread unsubstantiated conspiracies sectioned off in its own section.  Removed all tabloids and trivia.  I thank those who have recognised that I was doing that, against the onslaught of international mainstream news outlets propagating the story further.  It wasn’t a BLP violation before, but since the news it’s a clear BLP violation.  Me and the involved editors have created Frankenstein’s monster.  This must be deleted.  Also, those with a Wikipedia-centric view of the internet, this article got less than 10k views per day, as opposed to the 400million views the media, and social media commentary received.  The article had about 0.0000025% the viewership.  TheSpacebook ( talk ) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be worthwhile to note that

Discussion outcome: no consensus