Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Looks like we're in for a spot of inclement weather..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of List of participants in the coronation procession of Elizabeth II (which has the same source as this article) created by sock puppet and LTA IPs. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's plainly not a duplicate. For example, the page in question has a section listing Members_of_foreign_royal_families who do not appear in the procession. As the coronation was extensively covered at the time and many books have been written about it since, the notability of the topic does not seem in question. As the procession was just a part of the coronation ceremony, the nomination does not seem to make much sense. It seems to be mainly a matter of WP:ADHOM, which is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The one source given only lists people who were expicitly in the procession. So, if they are not listed in the source, they should not be in the article at all, and if they are listed in the source then they were in the procession[1]. What you've said is blatantly and obviously false. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are only required for controversial claims and quotations – see WP:V and WP:NEXIST. Take Princess Astrid of Norway, for example. It seems easy to verify that she was there by consulting a source such as this, which also lists other royal guests. So, per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE - documentaries have been done about this very topic. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the main coronation article - I agree with Davidson's assessment that this topic has been extensively covered by the media. If merged though, a hidden spoiler-like tag would do wonders to prevent the other article from getting cluttered.Garlicolive (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article should definitely be reformatted and more sources should be added, but this is a topic which passes LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely a notable topic imo. BEFORE shows enough coverage to establish notability. No doubt the article requires to be reformatted and sourced better but that can be achieved by tagging too. Deletion is unnecessary. TheRedDomitor (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.