Fascinating. A higher class of article is bringing out a higher class of malcontent.
....Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Arise Sir Serge of Woodzing. I Knight thee in the name of the King (of Wikipedia).
It is perhaps solely due to the palpable sense of shame the good Knight speaks of (that you would hope every single Wikipedia editor is feeling right now) that explains why Damah God appears entirely uninterested in this report. Even their God's have forsaken these wretched beings.
I fear this is yet more of the inexperience
IgnatiusofLondon (T-C-L) speaks of in his user page reflections.....
On 11 March 2024, I created Where is Kate?, an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and the Mother's Day photograph that followed. The article was fully sourced using only reliable sources listed at WP:RSP.
......
My decision to create Where is Kate? ...... was never intended to feed the media interest in the story, encroach on the princess' privacy, or amplify gossip, but only to reflect the extensive and sustained coverage of the topic........It seemed a disservice to readers that the widespread speculation, lurid as it was, received no mention at all on Wikipedia when it had been leading newspaper headlines.
.....
As one editor has said, I have a lot to answer for. My edits were in good faith, and I hope my explanations provide some context for understanding my actions.......this was the first major BLP article to which I have contributed.
......
The controversy over Where is Kate? may have exposed some holes in the nets of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that should be knitted to prevent a repeat of the past two weeks.
......
I am sorry to everyone to whom I have caused distress. I should never have created the article. I'm sorry. IgnatiusofLondon 01:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: Contrary to off-wiki comments made about me, I am not ...... I'm just inexperienced. IgnatiusofLondon 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft vote for 3rd AfD
Delete: This has been a torturous and difficult journey, but I understand now why the article should be deleted.
.......
...not even a quotable part of WP:BLP produces any immediately-obvious rationales for deletion. Instead, in my view, the article merely but brazenly violates the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP:
.......
It was broad handwaving over WP:BLP that led me to write the article in the first place, dissatisfied by editors' premature and dismissive closures of requests at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales for more coverage of the widespread speculation. If editors had better articulated the BLP concerns from the outset at that talk page, I would not have been moved to create the article. Now I understand better.... this article cuts against the spirit of the policy, not any quotable text that is particularly fitting to this article's case.
The painful last few days should provide an impetus for editors to reflect on whether Wikipedia's policies and guidelines need to be updated to cater for these kinds of articles, and the spirit of these policies and guidelines be better codified to avoid editors creating and maintaining articles that reflect media crazes [on living persons], even if they are generating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
.......
Some editors have remarked off-wiki that the article has the signature of a coatrack article, exemplified by the widespread dissatisfaction of the current article title and the lack of consensus for an alternative name. I think this is a symptom of the underlying problem – that the article is about a media craze. Finally, the speculation can be, and should be, adequately summarised in a few sentences in Catherine, Princess of Wales; I think a Merge is unnecessary as the sources are readily findable. Given the BLP violations, I think an eventual Redirect is fine, so long as the page history of the present article is deleted, which is why I am supporting Delete. IgnatiusofLondon 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Supplementary comment: I was the article's creator, major contributor, and first AfD nominator. .... I acknowledge that I should never have created the article, and I am sorry for the distress I have caused and, in the eyes of many editors, for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, not only by the content of the article, but by the chaos created ......I hope my apology provides some explanation of what drove me to create and edit the article in the first place, and some reassurance that my editing activity has been in good faith. I'm sorry. IgnatiusofLondon 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I accept your apology IgnatiusofLondon.
While not blameless, given all the signposting in Wikipedia policy and guidance that advises editors to defer to their peers and exercise great caution in matters of BLP, you are perhaps being far too harsh on yourself as an individual.
This is regrettably a systemic fault of Wikipedia.
Sure, the BLP policy can be tweaked to cover situations like this. But it doesn't really need to be. The essay COATRACK is widely known, well understood and has the full support of the community as a Wikipeida: space supplementary explanation of the intersection between BLP and NPOV.
It flags the danger. The warning was not heeded. The why, is complex, but also very simple.
There is very little adult supervision on Wikipedia. Even less when a mob of inexperienced and misguided editors has been whipped up and genuinely believe they're acting in good faith. Many of the voters in these various debates might be literal children, and thus lack the maturity of thought required to balance complex policy. Children like simple rules. Yes/no. Do/don't. We cannot know how much this influenced events, and must not ask.
Others still are biased. Some known, some unknown. It's had a massive impact on this affair, and thus the views of Wikipedia editors. As is being admitted only now by some reliable sources, now distance is occurring, and guilt is being felt.
No, America, Britain does not treat Royals as public property. We do not consider every little detail of their lives to be our business. No, our trust has not been shattered. The tabloid interest exists, but for very obvious reasons (historical, practical, humane), in this specific case they showed exceptional restraint. The problem is that the Royals and Royal Correspondents are no longer in charge. Social media rules the roost, and regrettably, the media Wikipedia considers reliable, are all too happy to monetize it.
Such is the seriousness with which BLP is taken, this situation could have been prevented through the direct intervention of a single Administrator, the presumed responsible adults of Wikipedia, citing COATRACK. And the ensuing discussion of that act of
caution, since BLP isn't merely a DO NOT but a WAIT AND DISCUSS, likely would have resembled that seen at BLP/N, rather than XfD.
But alas, Wikipedia has rather a crisis of availability in that area, Administrative availability or even giving a shitness. Or even clue! To take examples like
After Midnight (T-C-L), one wonders how many of the supposedly "active" Administrators even understand the very basics of the BLP policy.
Fear not. There are still things you can do here. As I have said before, Wikipedia is curiously lacking in an article on
Public image of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L), which is a rather common and accepted topic on Wikipedia for individuals with stratopheric notability. As the future Queen of England clearly is.
I can see such an article responsibly hosting the selarate but related matters of her absence and photography skills, and their alleged impact on the Royals. A couple of sections, given reasonable weight among other well covered matters, such as her fashion (itself an entire article at present!). All impeccably sourced, where they speak directly and in detail, from a position of authority. Rather than the latest hot takes from disphit social media correspondents whose bias against the Royals is often really rather obvious, as I pointed out in my opening post.
You have it in your gift as an inexperienced yet confirmed editor, to create such an article. And then populate it with content from existing articles (be mindful of the rules on internal attribution when copying text within Wikipedia). Then give it a quick and dirty edit, tossing the junk, keeping the gold.
I'm quite confident that if people can see this content presented with due weight, in an article that actually belongs on Wikipedia, they will be convinced of their error and come over to the Delete side.
If not, fuck em. Your eyes will have been opened as to the true nature of Wikipedia, and you may yet reconsider the wisdom of devoting the best part of your life to editing it. As it appears many Administrators have and are already considering.
What is dead can never die. But it can slide quietly into the deep, from whence it came.