647:'s wedding, which happened while her dad was still President. AFAIK we don't have a separate article on that wedding, which was subject to a flurry of coverage on a slow news day as well. I'm as much in favor of the conversion of the U.S. government to a hereditary monarchy as anyone else, but until that happens, royal weddings are going to be state occasions tied to real, recognized dynasties, and Chelsea Clinton's wedding is not. -
621:
to say about it. Yes, there's a ton of media coverage, but it seems primarily to be reporting details for the sake of reporting details, not because it actually matters in any way what color the centerpieces were or somesuch. It might somehow turn out to be a historically significant event, but right
547:
I think another difference between this wedding and the royal ones is that the royal ones are televised, making them public events. (At least, I'm under the impression they were all televised. If any of them were private affairs equivalent to
Chelsea's except that one or more of the participants were
768:
per nom. I agree with
Propaniac that a major difference between the Charles-Diana wedding and this wedding is that the Charles-Diana wedding was broadcast to millions of viewers throughout the world, while this wedding wasn't broadcast to anyone anywhere. Yes, some media did report on this wedding,
458:
What was it then? It had absolutely no effect on the world that has been recorded. People are hungry for gossip about the rich and the media delivers. These sorts of news stories are not encyclopedic but simply pander to our desire to snoop into the lives of the others. I have yet to read any news
473:
Even if the effect is to make the
Clinton family look stupid and to show how shallow and celebrity obbsessed the American people are that would merit an article. Many much smaller events, like one episode of a TV show, have
155:
532:
There's a big difference. The marriage of
Charles and Diana, for example, was an event of great moment because Diana would assuredly become the mother of a future monarch that would likely influence the lives of millions.
426:. there is no reason to keep it when it is already covered in the Chealsea Clinton's article. This is'nt something that blewup so big it needs is own article. Paragraph or phrase in her article would more then suffice.
399:
The wedding itself was a notable event judging from the media coverage already. As more details are known more information will be added to the article. The event has an importance beyond its effect on the two people.
279:
A notable event with nationwide media coverage; this AfD is premature for an article that was stubbed out a mere 18hrs ago. The article could conceivably grow to contain details which would be
149:
422:
spent last night lampooning the lack of information they were covering nothing. I hate to use the John
Stewart as the basis for an argument here but we are arguing to keep this
110:
301:
except unencyclopedic details such as the color of
Hillary Cinton's gown or the brand of champagne served. These details belong in a gossip magazine not an encyclopedia.
271:
and is the only thing outside of a sentence or paragaph in
Chealsea Clinton's article or Mezvinsky's if he ever runs for senate or something. 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
320:
agree completely with the nomination - regardless of the result of the
Mezvinsky article this is redundant to the Chelsea article and integrated there with no problem.
687:
283:
within the biography of the bride. I'd be happy to revisit a merge, say, six months down the road, and if it's still a short stub, a merge would probably be fine. --
713:
83:
78:
115:
87:
581:, but as a stub it can be added to their individual biographies. To be own article it has to concentrate on details of wedding and the invitation list. --
70:
586:
521:. It's odd for such a free-wheeling project to take the stance that only the royals are notable. In the U.S. this is about as close as we get. --
602:
924:
346:
582:
170:
839:
137:
17:
194:
page is on the threshold of deletion. Everything that needs to be said about the wedding has been said on the
Chelsea Clinton page.
814:
569:. This article obviously has valuable information, but I don't think it has enough to justify it being a separate article.
342:
131:
949:
932:
915:
898:
875:
847:
826:
797:
780:
760:
746:
728:
702:
673:
655:
631:
609:
590:
573:
557:
542:
525:
508:
483:
468:
449:
435:
409:
389:
374:
350:
329:
310:
287:
260:
236:
203:
52:
964:
36:
127:
74:
177:
963:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
777:
538:
464:
385:
306:
199:
66:
58:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
928:
923:- there is no new information. this is a pretty pathetic article with a single paragraph. she is not royalty.
245:
843:
756:
661:
518:
911:
268:
893:
871:
232:
143:
819:
742:
496:
427:
338:
252:
249:
945:
865:
774:
627:
553:
534:
460:
431:
381:
380:
Please, the century is only a decade old. Let's wait another 90 years before we rush to judgement.
302:
256:
226:
195:
163:
752:
669:
479:
445:
405:
598:
280:
907:
793:
724:
698:
440:
I'm not saying we need the article. But it was more than just an event in two people's lives.
370:
325:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
788:
Who cares. This is an event in the life of a first daughter; not a notable historical event
769:
but whatever there was for them to report (and there wasn't that much) can be covered in the
888:
652:
644:
884:
860:
835:
809:
770:
738:
640:
213:
187:
887:
article. There is some good information, but this event doesn't warrant its own article.
941:
856:
623:
549:
522:
504:
359:
284:
221:
217:
191:
665:
606:
475:
441:
401:
789:
720:
694:
419:
366:
321:
49:
104:
648:
570:
500:
297:. I cannot envision this article growing. There's nothing further to report
751:
delete* Anything useful can be described in two lines on the CC article. --
224:
are valid redirects (one as a misspelling). This article is not valid. —
362:
into this one until he gains his own notability, which may never come.
957:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
459:
story that indicates this wedding was an event of great moment.
190:
page, and this article appears to have been created because the
48:. merge isnt appropriate as this appears to be a content fork.
186:
Page is an almost exact duplicate of the same material on the
838:
article. There is little here to justify a seperate page.
548:
royalty, I don't think they should have articles, either.)
863:; that's where any relevant content should be merged. —
517:
Eh, that's true, but we've got a handful of articles in
423:
100:
96:
92:
737:- all the content of any value is already in the BLP.
162:
176:
605:of the subject; not sure of the other criteria. —
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
967:). No further edits should be made to this page.
622:now it just looks like something that happened.
358:- wedding of the century, right? I would merge
8:
688:list of Events-related deletion discussions
940:, notable event, lots of media attention.
708:
682:
714:list of News-related deletion discussions
712:: This debate has been included in the
686:: This debate has been included in the
861:Chelsea Clinton#Engagement and marriage
643:'s page. I'm old enough to remember
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
653:killing the human spirit since 2003!
341:. Newsworthy doesn't equal notable.
339:Knowledge (XXG) is not a news outlet
269:Wikinews adequately covers the topic
859:article was deleted/redirected to
24:
617:I just don't think there's much
601:is the relevant policy. There's
906:- Why the word "banal" exists.
805:into Chelsea Clinton article.
583:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
950:05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
53:06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
984:
933:22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
916:21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
899:19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
876:15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
848:03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
827:17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
798:04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
781:15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
761:15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
747:16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
729:16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
703:16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
674:16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
656:14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
632:13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
610:10:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
591:06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
574:05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
558:13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
543:07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
526:02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
509:01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
484:16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
469:07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
450:00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
436:00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
410:23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
390:07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
375:22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
351:22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
330:21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
311:06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
288:20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
261:20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
237:20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
204:20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
495:. Knowledge (XXG) is not
67:Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding
59:Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding
960:Please do not modify it.
343:Are You The Cow Of Pain?
32:Please do not modify it.
662:Commonwealth of Nations
519:Category:Royal weddings
244:Agree with the nom,
216:is a valid article,
660:We could join the
44:The result was
874:
731:
717:
705:
691:
299:about the wedding
235:
975:
962:
896:
891:
870:
864:
824:
822:
817:
812:
718:
692:
645:Tricia Nixon Cox
603:lots of coverage
579:Keep if it grows
418:Media coverage,
231:
225:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
983:
982:
978:
977:
976:
974:
973:
972:
971:
965:deletion review
958:
894:
889:
885:Chelsea Clinton
868:
836:Chelsea Clinton
820:
815:
810:
807:
771:Chelsea Clinton
649:Smerdis of Tlön
641:Chelsea Clinton
229:
214:Chelsea Clinton
188:Chelsea Clinton
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
981:
979:
970:
969:
953:
952:
935:
925:184.96.118.189
918:
901:
878:
857:Marc Mezvinsky
850:
829:
800:
783:
775:Metropolitan90
763:
749:
732:
706:
679:
678:
677:
676:
634:
612:
593:
576:
563:
562:
561:
560:
535:Susanne2009NYC
530:
529:
528:
512:
511:
497:a society page
489:
488:
487:
486:
461:Susanne2009NYC
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
413:
412:
393:
392:
382:Susanne2009NYC
364:
363:
360:Marc Mezvinsky
353:
332:
314:
313:
303:Susanne2009NYC
291:
290:
274:
273:
272:
246:WP:CONTENTFORK
239:
222:Mark Mezvinsky
218:Marc Mezvinsky
196:Susanne2009NYC
192:Marc Mezvinsky
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
980:
968:
966:
961:
955:
954:
951:
947:
943:
939:
936:
934:
930:
926:
922:
919:
917:
913:
909:
905:
902:
900:
897:
892:
886:
882:
879:
877:
873:
867:
862:
858:
854:
851:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
828:
825:
823:
818:
813:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
782:
779:
776:
772:
767:
764:
762:
758:
754:
753:Cameron Scott
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
730:
726:
722:
715:
711:
707:
704:
700:
696:
689:
685:
681:
680:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
658:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:of importance
616:
613:
611:
608:
604:
600:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
572:
568:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
531:
527:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
490:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
457:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:Actually Keep
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
361:
357:
354:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
292:
289:
286:
282:
278:
275:
270:
267:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
251:
247:
243:
240:
238:
234:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
959:
956:
937:
920:
908:JakeInJoisey
903:
880:
852:
840:65.35.147.38
831:
806:
802:
785:
765:
734:
709:
683:
636:
618:
614:
595:
578:
566:
492:
420:John Stewart
396:
365:
355:
334:
317:
298:
294:
276:
265:
241:
209:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
890:Airplaneman
773:article. --
150:free images
739:Off2riorob
250:WP:NOTNEWS
942:Everyking
883:into the
721:• Gene93k
695:• Gene93k
624:Propaniac
550:Propaniac
523:Kendrick7
474:articles.
428:Weaponbb7
285:Kendrick7
253:Weaponbb7
866:Timneu22
666:Wolfview
607:Ashley Y
599:WP:EVENT
596:Comment:
476:Wolfview
442:Wolfview
402:Wolfview
281:WP:UNDUE
248:classic
227:Timneu22
111:View log
790:Bwmoll3
424:Article
367:Bearian
322:Hekerui
295:Comment
266:comment
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
921:Delete
904:Delete
855:, the
786:Delete
778:(talk)
766:Delete
735:Delete
637:Smerge
615:Delete
571:Eyu100
493:Delete
337:- per
335:Delete
318:Delete
242:delete
210:Delete
128:Google
88:delete
46:delete
881:Merge
834:into
832:Merge
821:comms
811:fetch
803:Merge
639:into
567:Merge
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
946:talk
938:Keep
929:talk
912:talk
872:talk
853:Note
844:talk
794:talk
757:talk
743:talk
725:talk
710:Note
699:talk
684:Note
670:talk
628:talk
587:talk
554:talk
539:talk
505:talk
501:Deor
480:talk
465:talk
446:talk
432:talk
406:talk
386:talk
371:talk
356:Keep
347:talk
326:talk
307:talk
277:Keep
257:talk
233:talk
220:and
200:talk
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
719:--
693:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
948:)
931:)
914:)
846:)
796:)
759:)
745:)
727:)
716:.
701:)
690:.
672:)
664:.
651:-
630:)
589:)
556:)
541:)
507:)
499:.
482:)
467:)
448:)
434:)
408:)
388:)
373:)
349:)
328:)
309:)
259:)
212:.
202:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
944:(
927:(
910:(
895:✈
869:·
842:(
816:·
808:—
792:(
755:(
741:(
723:(
697:(
668:(
626:(
585:(
552:(
537:(
503:(
478:(
463:(
444:(
430:(
404:(
384:(
369:(
345:(
324:(
305:(
255:(
230:·
198:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.