Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

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 delete. So there is clear consensus here that the article should not be kept as is in mainspace. The only substantial disagreement is how the history will be preserved. So, what I'm going to do is move this page to Draft-space, and redirect it to Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. At the point that Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is moved to mainspace, this Draftspace redirect (with the history preserved) can be moved back to mainspace also, with the redirect changed to target the new mainspace article. That way, history will be preserved (and should be called out via an edit summary on the article). Daniel (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable item of clothing, with no discernable difference from any outfit worn by Meghan at any other event. Doesn't appear to have garnered any significant, in-depth coverage. The given sources are society publications which comment on this type of subject as routine. Nthep (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Royal dresses of this sort attract attention and so are notable as the coverage demonstrates. We've been here before and Wikipedia's leadership clearly indicated that we should not be discriminating against such topics. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is quite notable and has received much coverage in the media, like the Travolta dress and the Revenge dress. The article just needs some expansion. Peter Ormond 💬 10:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Merged with Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Peter Ormond 💬 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Adequately sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is nothing to do with gender bias, simply the notability of this dress. Virtually every public appearance made by Meghan gets reported on including her appearance. I'm seeing nothing that makes this dress any more notable than any other outfit she has worn. The other dresses mentioned, as worn by Diana, got critical commentary regarding either the public impact e.g. the Travolta dress, or the political statement made by the style, timing etc e.g. the revenge dress. This dress has none of that. Nthep (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added commentary. Peter Ormond 💬 15:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Reliable sources have been provided. And considering the fact that this was the dress she wore to her final engagement as a working royal and that a lot of memes were made out of it, this is not like her other ordinary outfits in terms of coverage and notability. Keivan.f^Talk 15:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It would be lie to say that I didn't change my mind after reading Nthep and Bettydaisies's comments, because unlike the Travolta dress or the Revenge dress, this particular dress has no cultural significance. We might as well go ahead and start an article about the red dress Kate wore to the same ceremony because sources exist on that too.^[1][2][3][4] But not all of their fashion choices are worthy of having an article. Keivan.f^Talk 19:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can’t see what’s disqualifying about these sources. Sports pages cover athletes as a matter of routine and we don’t exclude them. This is a subject for which there’s significant coverage, discussing the contemporary context as well as how it fits into historical tradition. Good enough for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I still look with great skepticism on the idea that because there’s too much coverage, the topic is somehow less notable. That said, it seems reasonable enough to start with a topic article, as Bettydaisies has graciously begun, and create any necessary forks later, as warranted. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The media covers almost every fashion choice made by female royals. Should articles be made about, for instance, the dress Meghan wore to the Lion King premiere in 2018,
  Royal Ascot in 2015,^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} or the dress Catherine wore to Wimbledon a week ago?^{[13][14][15][16][17]} It seems premature (if anything) and unnecessary.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per Bettydaisies, the lifestyle media likes to comment on and nitpick everything the royal family does, including their fashion choices, and it's rather undue and unencylopedic to treat each thing they do or item they wear as separately notable. I think an overall article on Meghan's fashion could be appropriate, but not individual attire that certainly doesn't have the significance of the Travolta dress or the wedding gowns. Reywas92^Talk 04:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm rather intrigued by the idea of articles on the overall fashion of specific royals, including Meghan, especially since it takes up a substantial section of space in a few of them.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bettydaisies, I think opening such an article so this could be merged there would be very productive, if you feel motivated. The coverage of that topic is clearly abundant and sustained. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could definitely be beneficial, and I don't see a reason not to expand on it. I'll try to start a draft tonight in case. It also opens up interesting avenues for other important figures in fashion history, i.e Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: drafts available for

Catherine

for those interested.

Then

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Also, unlike Diana's two dresses, it has no cultural significance. Peter Ormond 💬 04:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per Bettydaisies, and Reywas92. It simply is not notable.--Bduke (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dresses worn by senior British female royals very frequently attract coverage in the tabloid press and gossip magazines. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have articles on almost all royal dresses because
  Wikipedia is not a news service and considers the lasting significance of the subject. I don't see any sign that this dress has lasting significance, only one of the sources cited was written more than a few days after she wore it, and that one is only a few months later. There might be scope to mention it in a more general article. Hut 8.5 11:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  WP:SUSTAINED are applicable here. The fashion choices of the Royal Family are part and parcel of the day to day coverage of pretty much everything they do. The dress was covered in newspaper reports but does not have sustained coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. If the article is to be merged with
  Draft:Fashion of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, as it is also not quite notable. One should not have double standards. Peter Ormond 💬 04:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless we're becoming the celebrity squawk of the encyclopedia world a la the much-deplored (on Wikipedia, anyway) dailymail.uk. – Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of the 'Draft:Fashion of' pages being worked on. – Athaenara ✉ 09:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the "fashion of" pages are preferable to a continued proliferation of one-per-dress or one-per-outfit pages. – Athaenara ✉ 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  WP:SUSTAINED, no indication of anything more than passing coverage with no lasting cultural significance. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• So, it should be a redlink but can we avoid the need for a history merge by draftifying it? Would this enable a selective merge to the fashion article without breaking attribution?—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect Clearly meet the GNG, but sustained coverage seems unlikely. It's clear her fashion choices are covered in detail, so an article on that probably makes sense (that coverage is sustained). Hobit (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip tabloid. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:SUSTAINED. To keep, we would want to see sustained coverage of the cultural significance of the outfit. --Enos733 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note to closer This has been merged into [1], in draft space as noted above. For now, to keep attribution going, I'd redirect to [2]. It can be redirected to the draft once it's in mainspace (which may happen before this AfD closes). Hobit (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. The "delete" consensus here is incompatible with the need to preserve attribution after the merge that's already happened. The closer is likely going to need to do a history merge.—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm usually very skeptical of merging articles while they're at AfD just to use attribution dependencies to stymie an emerging delete consensus. If attribution history needs to be preserved then the correct way to proceed would be to turn it into a protected redirect, then take a very close and severe look at whether the merge target actually needs all of this tabloid celebrity gossip. Reyk _YO! 08:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a selective merge is often an appropriate way to deal with content about something non-notable. I have a much higher opinion of the practice than you seem to. It's sometimes best to use {{copied}} on the target article; there's always a way to preserve attribution, I just want to understand better how to do it without soaking up silly amounts of sysop time.—S Marshall T/C 09:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The second method listed at
  WP:PATT can be used. Placing a list of all the editors of Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex onto Draft talk:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex with an appropriate edit summary will suffice. No need to keep the title as a redirect. Nthep (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Maybe. But since merge is a legitimate and common outcome of AfDs anyway, I think it should happen at the end of the process rather than during. And in my first few years on the project I saw the extraordinary three-card-monte merger tricks the old school (now permabanned) ARS crowd used to play, and that's left me with a bit of prejudice against this practice. Reyk _YO! 13:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have concerns about forcing editors to leave merges til after the AfD has closed. Like so much with Wikipedia, it's easy to find people who will say that the article should be merged. They usually mean that it should be merged by someone else. Actually doing the merge, properly, is painstaking work that needs good editorial judgment. It's best done while the community's eyes are on the matter. Having discussions end with a close that amounts to "keep" with a {{
  mergeto}} template (which can be removed by any editor) is less desirable imo.—S Marshall T/C 14:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - simply does not meet the sustained portion of notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 25 July 2021 (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.