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. The only consensus I can see over the voluminous comments provided is the desire to keep this article in some form. I suggest moving the discussion from AFD to the article talk page to explore the possibility of renaming the article or merging some of the content to other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queue[edit]

The Queue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This event fails WP:NEVENT, as this is neither something with WP:LASTING significance nor an event with wide geographical scope and could frankly be deleted under WP:DEL-REASON#8. Any content here can be appropriately covered within the article on Elizabeth II's death, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which is a more appropriate location to describe this article's subject. As such, I am proposing that we blank-and-redirect this article, as this is a non-notable event where any coverage would be better placed in the proper context of the death article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Christianity, Geography, England, and Islands. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - extremely broad international coverage, not all feeding from local sources certainly gives a reasonable indication that it is notable. Additionally, not all the available content could reasonably be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article, so it would also act as a reasonable spinoff article. The BLAR didn't merge the then present content (already shorter than the current level) into that article, additionally. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NOPAGE, There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I think this is clearly one of those times; we're covering the line to see the queen in this article. Even for Evita, the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her or attend her funeral in a single section in her biographical article. I see no reason why the queue itself is expected to have lasting coverage that is better situated in its own article rather than in the broader context of the article on Elizabeth's death and state funeral. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her. -- What you claim here isn't reflected in the text of the article. 3 million people gathered. But a gathering is not the same as a queue. Seddon ^talk 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this considered for deletion? "The Queue" is a cultural phenomenon and a historic event which is being reported on in newspapers and news channels around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessdawn (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is considered for deletion per the rationale presented in the nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue; obviously does not need a separate article. The international coverage and wildly premature "cultural phenomenon" claim is not independent of the broader news around the death and funeral, and the content does not warrant a split. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It's certainly worth mentioning The Queue (and I do enjoy the capitalisation), but the information here belongs in the main article., A.D.Hope (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue, pending a couple days to see if there's sustained coverage. Rather humored this made it to the Christianity AFD sorting, but I suppose it is actually appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. There's already a more notable queue in British culture, it's the queue for Wimbledon tickets and it has appeared every year since 1922, yet only gets a mention in Wimbledon Championships#Tickets 141.143.213.47 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (updated) per WP:NEVENT I disagree the nominators assessment here. The second criteria in NEVENT Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources very clearly applies here. It has resulted in the hospitalisation of 45 people, is being assessed as being a potential world record, the coverage is only increasing and is also likely to be the focus of future scientific studies. In addition:

• Meets WP:GEOSCOPE -- Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely)
• Meets WP:DEPTH -- The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Times...
• Meets WP:GNG -- gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.

Unlike the generic queues for Wimbledon, this queue... THE Queue... is itself notable. Seddon ^talk 02:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree (about Wimbledon). The organizers call it "The Queue"[1][2] ("The Queue has capital letter status because it is a Wimbledon institution"), the press call it "The Queue" (or the "Wimbledon Queue" or "The Queue at Wimbledon", etc.)[3][4][5][6][7] "The Wimbledon queue is not a mere queue but, as the signs call it, ‘The Queue.’ It is an event, a feature of the championships since the early 20th Century." - so while mourners queuing to see Elizabeth lying-in-state is a noteworthy event, and the press have dubbed it "The Queue", it's not notable that they've dubbed it that, and there are challengers from other famous queues. 141.143.213.47 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This event is likely to have set a world record so I'm game for creating a disambiguation page if appropriate for other lesser queues. Seddon ^talk 23:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above - agree fully with original nomination. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as it can easily fit in the section within the main article, but wait at the moment to see how the whole thing develops until Monday. Keivan.f^Talk 04:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that we don't have to wait until Monday. The page has been expanded and can be a standalone article. Keivan.f^Talk 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm not yet convinced of its independent notability in a week in which lots of things are going to be big or a bit (?) surprising. I'd say that if in a year it looks like it was, then try recreating it and prove us wrong in a calmer time, but for now I think it should just be within the death/funeral article. DBaK (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Not every current event needs an article, and this one is hardly notable. Antoniciagala (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. I think the scale of this gathering of mourners is notable enough to get mentioned in the main article on the Queen's funeral, but unless some major event happens within the line itself, I don't think "A Particularly Long Line Of People" necessitates an article in and of itself, let alone a name with the gravitas of "THE QUEUE". Peribirb (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not "gravitas" that is making that name be used, it's because lots of sources are calling it that. Now if it ends up being partially spun off into a lying in state article, obviously that would also be accurate. But COMMONNAME would make this a logical name for its current form (although a disambiguator could certainly be added) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue. I was excited about the possibility of a The Queue article, but I calmed down and instead created the Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue subsection. I think the sensible course of action is to let that section develop and then we can review the situation and (re)create a spin-off article if needed. I suggest that if a spin-off article is needed, it makes sense to create something like The lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II, including content on The Queue, rather than a separate Queue article. That all said, I do agree with the article creator that The Queue has attracted considerable domestic and international attention (e.g., CNN, Le Parisien, Courrier International, Zentralplus). I would encourage those concerned about WP:RECENTISM to help chop out the trivia elsewhere in the Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A day on and I've changed my mind. The article has grown significantly, and plenty more news stories have come out and have not yet been covered in the article. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It is getting too long to be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. I would suggest that a Lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II article including events in Westminster Hall would be a more sensible way of carving up the material, otherwise it's a bit unclear where some events should be covered (e.g., someone rushing at the catafalque). Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another day on, and can we just Snow it now? Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait It'll be gone by Monday: take a view after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alasdairking (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the current peak at 4.9km is 1.1km shy of the longest ever funeral queue of 6km.[8] We should avoid an early SNOW close, as this queue might exceed that over the weekend. Fences&Windows 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's 5 miles long, not 5km, so it will be the new world record holder. Fences&Windows 14:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but Wait to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue. I do not believe that the queue in itself will have sufficient permanent notability to deserve an article of its own. It may be that the Lying in State will deserve its own article. Premature SNOW closure would be inappropriate. Much better to wait until after the funeral, when an experienced editor can restructure all the articles relating to the demise of the Crown and Accession of Charles III. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The queue is not notable in and of itself. Recent news reports give it undue weight. When the Queen's father died there was a similar queue. A year from now it will only need a passing mention in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. "The Queen lay in state before her funeral. [number] million queued for up to 14 hours to see her in a queue that stretched [miles] to [endpoint]." That's all the lasting and historical impact that will come from it. H. Carver (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until Monday. Personally I would want this to be merged with the main article but I can see that there is substantial coverage about it. Vida0007 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was initially leaning towards "merge" but as the days went on I understood why this needs a separate article (per the reasons stated above and below this one). However, I do think this article needs to be renamed, as suggested by – robertsky and Lordrosemount below. Vida0007 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main article, we really don't need an article about the line. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious merge.  — Scott • talk 12:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per arguments above; it may become (through coverage) worthy of its own page but current coverage doesn't support that. I do think it will deserve its own section within the merged article if the feature coverage continues. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amending this to Keep given more news coverage such as [this article].

• Wait, then Merge per above. This allows the details and references to be gathered on its own page and then added to the other one afterwards. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is getting huge coverage in the British media currently. If you Google "the queue", it currently takes you on to it. Given that we have articles for Hajj cough and Mobile Bay jubilee in the "Crowds" category already, this seems to meet our standards for notability. I can see that a lot of folk are voting for Merge. I don't mind that option too much, but the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article is very long already, so I have a slight preference to keep "The Queue" as a separate article. Epa101 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A cultural phenomenon getting widespread international attention. Like the Queue itself, this article is only going to get longer over the coming days and is likely to overwhelm any article into which it is merged. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. There is too much content in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article already, so merging may not be the best idea. It is not possible to predict the long-term impacts of "The Queue" by itself at present, nor is it possible to predict whether it will be known as "The Queue" on a long-term basis. However, there is enough verifiable content to sustain an article. --RFBailey (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Big coverage in the UK media currently. Too much content in this article to merge into the already large base article. It'd be good to split things off where necessary XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - It will be easier to decide once the lying-in-state has concluded on Monday morning. It's likely that we should merge, but given the amount of material currently in the article under discussion, it's worth hanging on and seeing what happens. Patience is free. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This event does not fail WP:NEVENT as it is certainly: "significant (a 5 mile long queue), interesting (it's a 5 mile long queue!), and unusual enough (it's a 5 mile long queue to see the coffin of a dead monarch, possibly the last monarch in human history who will ever receive this much attention) to deserve attention or to be recorded". It is likely WP:LASTING in its significance as I think most observers recognize the absurdity of a five mile long queue to see a dead monarch in modern times. Paradoxsociety 22:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for the many reasons stated above. It can easily be part of the main page, no need to have a separate one. Eccekevin (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until Monday as many have said, then merge if/when it becomes clear this is the right choice. The Queue is certainly interesting as of now, but it will likely not be as notable in a year. In addition, I find the cultural significance stated in the article to be jumping the gun a little; the Queue has only existed for three days. How can we possibly know if it's culturally significant? If it proves to be somewhat significant in the long term, it can be given its own section in Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue, as it is a part of a larger event rather than a standalone incident. The amount of notable details will likely fit there. However, it may prove worthy of its own article in the end; it's worth waiting as this is still an ongoing event. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 00:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been several days and it seems the article may be worth a keep. The article has been expanded with enough relevant, well-cited details to make it worth its own article. That said, as many have stated, it may be best moved to a title like The Queue (lying in state of Elizabeth II) or Queue to view the coffin of Elizabeth II; as many have argued, the current name is catchy but likely won't be as ubiquitous in a few decades. I find that as a cultural phenomenon related to a historical event, with enough notable and documented incidents and relevance, it's worthy of its own article. Now that the event has passed, it's easier to see that it will still be relevant after time has passed, as a queue of this magnitude for a British monarch will likely not occur again. --The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 15:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, once the lying in state has finished, Merge. EmilySarah99 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Big coverage in the UK and international media.—Champeillant (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree KEEP, I am researching queue behaviour and only found this after reading Elizabethh II death, and a redirection to The Queue. 86.160.53.162 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II because we literally do not need a separate article about a queue - even a temporarily prominent one - at an event, when we already have an article about the event. Thparkth (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but at very least the wp:Lemma is ambigous. See for instance Death and state funeral of George VI. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the queue is something special and too large for a merge. Uwappa (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep– too much content to make a merge reasonable, enough sourcing, and part of such a major historic event that concerns of recentism are irrelevant. However it could be moved to Queue to see the coffin of Elizabeth II to have a less vague title. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note the article has considerably expanded since this AfD began. In particular, edits late on 16 September 2022 added considerable material. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, its gotten enough standalone coverage as a significant cultural event aside from the Queens funeral, and too long to just merge into the article. Its a once in 70 years event, I don't think its necessary to try and keep it all within one rapidly expanding article, especially considering the myriad of standalone articles for american cultural and political events. jonas (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. This article got >16000 views yesterday. I had an article (Jewish Indian theory) in yesterday's DYK on the front page and that got fewer views. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because it's a topical news item at the peak of its importance and interest, and the news media having (Definitive!) Nounified an event has driven engagement. Will it still be topical next week? Will it still be in a year, or will we simply remember that the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II had X mourners in Y days with the queue reaching Z miles at its peak? 146.198.240.71 (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was erring on the side of Merge but having read this BBC article - Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it (which I don't think is yet in article) combined with the other material now in the article I have no doubt this is a substantial standalone topic that's going to have longevity. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's enough content for a standalone article now. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delayed merge into Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Entire article could easily be condensed into a very short paragraph. However, I'd wait a few weeks until the surge of WP:RECENTISM has died down, as it will be easier to manage once the edit frenzy abates. Cnbrb (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has received a ton of coverage and will continue to do so. I think people will be researching this particular event as its own standalone thing in many years from now. The only thing that I'd maybe re-consider is the title of the article, "The Queue" is a popular name given to it, but maybe there's a better name that is more encyclopaedic. Jayden (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have already voted but I think the article is in a much better place than it was when the AfD nomination was initiated XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I'm not sure how WP:LASTING the event will be, it has been widely covered in-depth in international media from multiple angles and and with analysis which would seem to satisfy WP:NEVENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakelot1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to pass notability just at a skim, and I’ve seen some very stupid, obscure things pass as “notable” for having the barest minimum of sources. Agree that it’s too long to merge unless it’s drastically trimmed. Also support renaming; current title is both informal and vague and will likely not persist into the foreseeable future. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Talk about a flash in the pan. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has expanded since the nomination and will continue to do so. Too large to merge. Receiving enough standalone coverage separate to the main goings-on. Meets WP:NEVENT in my view. 49 TL 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG as is already mentioned in hundreds of RS. Abolish the monarchy, not this article. – Meena • 13:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe this event meets WP:NEVENT given the majority of the sources mentioned are articles about how unique this event is and it is a reflection of the unique British queuing culture. For this it meets notability not due to popularity but because of coverage of the unusual behaviour displayed by people going to queue. FeWorld (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the topic has received significant national and international coverage, and much of its content would be out of scope for the page on the Queen's death. It is much like the Clap for Our Carers page; despite both their limited timescales, the amount of cultural commentary they have received is notable and would have an undue weight if properly merged into their respective main articles. Wikipedia is not written on paper, and there is more than enough room for a well-researched article like this. --Voello _talk 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The overall scale of The Queue along with the standalone coverage specifically of The Queue itself definitely err into the realms of WP:NEVENT. Definitely worth renaming the article after The Queue finally dissapates (perhaps turning 'The Queue' into a redirect to this particular post-rename article, or a WP:DISAMBIG similar to The Queen), but, for the time being, seeing as the present WP:COMMONNAME for The Queue is 'The Queue', renaming this article would be best postponed for the time being. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk | contrib) 15:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur that whilst a rename at some point in the future may be likely but for now, WP:COMMONNAME holds for "The Queue". Seddon ^talk 15:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage has been extensive with articles in most major news outlets. Easily meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would keep the article because it seems to have become a major trend topic with a significant amount of reporting by both British and foreign news outlets, but I think there is scope to rename the article if there is conflict with other notable events colloquially called "the queue". Mitsuyashi (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the only alternative would be to place this content in the death and funeral article which is already extremely lengthy even prior to the funeral and may need splitting itself once things have settled down Davethorp (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've changed my mind due to the sheer amount of media coverage. It is definitely it's own thing and deserves its own article. Wait until Monday and then Merge into the Death of Liz 2 article. David G (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this discussion based on WP:SNOW. It seems clear that the consensus is not to delete the article, and that a merge discussion would be more appropriate. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. There are multiple news articles (English-speaking and other) talking about The Queue. It has gained fame status by now. Mhapperger (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even CNN are referencing it as "The Queue", initially in light humour at a perceived British stereotype, but it has now gained worldwide media recognition as a quite unique phenomenon for the UK population in modern times. I think people are acting in bad faith generally over many articles related to the late Queen Elizabeth's death, and wikipedia should not get swayed by such opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceblink (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Iceblink, I would not be accusing those with differing opinions in the AfD (or indeed, unnamed, unevidenced, editors elsewhere in the project) of bad faith. I'm familiar with both nom and a good third of those advocating merge/delete, and they are regulars who know what they are talking about, and do so in good faith. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure there are a few good folk, but seriously, Wikipedia and the Internet generally has been flooded by hate and ill-will in regard to Queen Elizabeth's death. The demonstrable affection shown by a five-mile queue in London drives these people literally to madness, I am sure. Iceblink (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I must concur with User:Nosebagbear on this. Disagree all you might, but please keep in mind that a) the notability has expanded in the real world as time has passed but also b) the article itself has been transformed in the time since nomination. Even then, lets keep things focused on facts and policy. Seddon ^talk 23:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's never been such a queue, five miles, night and day, for four days, in any country ever in history Iceblink (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree that an article on a queue is unusual, and hence can attract opposition, @Iceblink is right in saying that there is a strong lobby of hatred, and the hatred seems to be originating in the United States. Why the US is more hateful than parts of the former British Empire is beyond me, but it is a point to remember considering the weight that US editors have on Wikipedia. Mitsuyashi (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait a few days until new visits drop, given notoriety of the topic and page. The Queue wikipedia page was referenced in today's Wall Street Journal.

  - In print: In London, 'The Queue' Takes On a Life of Its Own (Monday, 2022-09-19)

  - Online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-britons-wait-to-see-queens-coffin-the-queue-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own-11663498146?page=1

  In a week or two Delayed Merge may be sensible, based on comments regarding ambiguity with The Queue (Wimbledon), and other remarks here (e.g., by Cncnb). Jade44wiki (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This will become an important event because it shows how devoted people were to the queen and it will mean that there are more records of the phenomenon that this queue has become! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.156.236 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC) – Moved to correct location. Madeline (part of me) 21:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as arguments above. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to pass notability given the substantial coverage; it's probably too long by now to be reasonably merged into Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II while keeping any semblance of depth. RickMorais (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article could benefit from a more formal/descriptive title but the LISQ will probably be the defining image/memory of this whole event, probably more so than the funeral itself in the long run.Danish Ranger (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While queuing is kinda a British stereotype, per the sourcing over the last couple of days this does seem to have become the definitive queue. At the present time the article clearly meets WP:SIGCOV, and with it currently being assessed for a Guinness World Record it may even meet the WP:LASTING criteria of WP:NEVENT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article is expanded and appears to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV including [9] 77.251.200.30 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close the AfD based on the fact there is a general consensus that we should keep the article. AfD request was made at a time when the article was stub-class and it has expanded very quickly XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for many of the reasons above, although it should be renamed to Stage Funeral Queue of Elizabeth II. The main article is already long enough. TitaraPheonix (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to have significant coverage as well as prominence. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's interesting to note how the nominee of this deletion discussion started with "This event fails WP:NEVENT". Only three days later, that statement is clearly now very wide of the mark. I suppose there must come a moment where an event may transform from being something probably non-notable to actually being very notable. This unique queue is certainly a cultural moment in the making with a great deal of public attention and participation.Seaweed (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Article does not fail WP:GNG, passes WP:NEVENT and is too long to be merged into the main article on the Queen's death and funeral. HenryTemplo 15:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Early on in this AFD, I was considering !voting to merge this to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II per WP:NOPAGE. However, since then, the Queue has definitely gained enough coverage to meet GNG, in part because it's grown to such massive proportions (both the article and the actual queue). Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II, as discussed above. Alex-h (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now As others have noted, it is a significant event in and of itself, dominating news in the UK and recieving coverage from elsewhere. There is too much content to realistically make it a section of another article without losing some of the detail and depth. Others have compared it to other articles, such as the one about Evita, pointing out that they have less detail, as some sort of justification that there should be less here. Just because we do not have the information to document something else, it does not mean that coverage of this even should suffer. If, as many commentators claim, it will not seem significant in years to come, it can always be merged in future, but it is likely to reduce the level of detail of new information contributors add if it is merged now. It may turn out to be the right decision to merge it eventually, but even if so, keeping it until that is clear is a safer bet, and it is certainly of interest at the moment. Sipos0 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It clearly is a resonabily significant media event in its own right with a decent amount of coverage. The name will probably have to be clarified at some point in the future.--Llewee (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've seen articles for much more obscure events than this. It has received news coverage in international media like ABS-CBN News here in the Philippines. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and cull the speculation, warbling and forced significance. The primary topic is the Funeral. The fact that there is a long queue that has taken on an aspect of notability doesn't differentiate it from that primary topic. This article could, and should, be summarised as "the queuue was long and an estimated x thousand people attended". Anything more than that is navel gazing nonsense. In a year if it is still being referred to, and retained notability, maybe then - but otherwise this is just an example of an event starved media covering the one thing it can cover to the nth degree. Koncorde (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For additional context to the significance of this event, see Yahoo's documenting of the '52 Lying in State Queue which has no "cultural phenomenon" associated with it, despite it being a thing at the time also. We should be surprised if there wasn't a queue. Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss on why there being a primary topic would mean a need to make a widely covered secondary aspect with dozens of RS have to be two lines. We don't do that for, say, Covid-19 secondary topics. And navel-gazing is an introspective thing - it's often given as the reason why there is a de facto higher burden for a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, but I can't see why it pertains here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "secondary aspect" is not distinct from the first, is in context of the first. That we have succeeded in bloating "the queue" with opinions and other coverage isn't evidence of significance - it's evidence of recentism and a lack of editorial oversight. Navel gazing is the act of focusing on one thing to the expense of wider issues - in this case apparently a long queue and a 24 hour news cycle desperate to fill content that we're now just going to uncritically reflect. Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject if this article, a very long queue, is a significant event of the time, with various royals greeting people in the queue. More importantly, the fact that this queue is part of an historic event makes it notable. There is significant news coverage of this queue Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's significant, notable, and has sufficient information to write an article. Merging would only lose infomation to little effect. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has obviously become notable - a huge amount of varied independent sources are already in the article. Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since this article was created, The Queue has received world wide coverage, with many news agencies from across the world visiting and doing reports on location. 31.125.77.82 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Paul[reply]
• Keep per Seddon. The queue to see Elizabeth II's coffin has gotten extensive coverage, and been the topic of frequent public discussion. Also, the article has been expanded a lot since this AFD was proposed, so pruning it to make it fit into the death article will remove lots of presumably notable information.- 87.58.119.203 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above comments. Article certainty meets notability criteria too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Has clearly become its own distinct topic with enough content for its own article. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It also needs to be updated to include the final number of people who queued and to include the various minimum and maximum queuing time and average time. 86.165.113.166 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is clearly a landmark event and has its own distinct characteristics separate from the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner74 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though I would support the article being moved to a more relevant and less ambiguous title. Compusolus (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I'm just not seeing how this gets over (a) WP:NOPAGE, and (b) the requirement for lasting significance. In 10 years, will people really be talking about the queue apart from the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, or at that time will it just be "and a huge queue formed"? Just doesn't seem like we need more than a summary in the main article, but I appreciate that I am swimming against a strong current at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although modify the title to make it more specific. JadeKrusade (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The three main arguments given by Merge voters are those given by Rhododendrites above and a third line (no pun intended) that is captured in H. Carver's assessment that "recent news reports give it undue weight". I feel such a judgement is not for Wikipedia to make—I cannot cite the exact policy but it runs against the spirit of, say, WP:SYNTH for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources (e.g. "Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it" from the BBC) as a mistake on the sources' part. Koncorde's remark that this is "navel-gaving" pushed by an "event-starved media" falls into the same error in even more obviously editorialising language. I have the same unease with the claim that our perception of The Queue in retrospect will reduce to "and a huge queue formed". This is a subjective judgement which runs contrary to the consensus in reliable sources: so it is essentially WP:OR. From another angle, it is also against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL to guess at what judgements might suggest themselves in the future. Implicit appeals to common sense—it "just doesn't seem like" it merits an entry—hold no weight. In relation to WP:NOPAGE, discussion of The Queue as a cultural phenomenon (such as the flash fiction by Will Dunn or comparisons to brunch) is better confined to its own entry rather than clogging up the already long and complex entry about the demise of the crown. It may be "just" a queue, but love it or hate it, it is a queue which reliable sources have covered in depth as a standalone topic. —Kilopylae (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This'll be my only response in this thread (it's just too much, and headed in a pretty predictable direction).
    for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources - Nobody has done that. We need evidence of lasting significance to demonstrate notability (which we do not yet have), and we need a reason for this to be separate from the main article (notability is required but not alone sufficient for this). This is a subjective judgement It is no more or less subjective/crystal bally as the prediction that coverage will continue. These arguments are effectively the contradictory advice given at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID (i.e. wait to create an article, and wait to delete an article). When someone ignores the former advice, the best we can do is use our judgment/experience to evaluate whether it's exceedingly likely there will continue to be coverage of this subject. My reading is that we will not see sustained coverage of the queue as distinct from the rest of the funeral, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that (a) there's a whole academic discipline (apparently called "crowd science") behind the Queueing theory that resulted in the design of The Queue, and this is one of the all time longest and most complex queue's to organise (see Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it, BBC, and How to Design the Perfect Queue, According to Crowd Science, Wired) and (b) academics have been gathering to study what's happened to this one (Scientists gather to study psychology of the queue, The Times), it seems clear that The Queue will have longevity in some areas of scholarship, however niche. DeCausa (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the context of that discipline, and if we have an article on crowd science and a section on queuing I would expect to see this (along with other large queues) being mentioned within the context of those pages, not forked. Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This page is too long for a merge into the main funeral article, which is already long, and The coverage of The Queue shows it will likely have a place in the British public consciousness like Clap for Our Carers does. It's also possibly the holder of a world record, although that hasn't been confirmed yet. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 15:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. The death of Elizabeth II has received saturation-level coverage in British media and it would be possible to write articles about even minor aspects of it as they pass the GNG. However as an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to do that. Instead we summarise the important information and leave out the more minor details. I'm not convinced that this aspect of the death will be significant, say, 10 years from now, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING we are only supposed to have articles on events with long-term significance. Yes, the article is too long to be merged into the funeral one, but that's the point - this level of coverage is too detailed. Hut 8.5 16:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I never thought I'd be saying this, but the WP:SIGCOV of The Queue itself is way, way, over the GNG boundary, indeed there has been more written in very reliable sources about The Queue than there have been about other notable elements of the death and funeral of QE2. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The Queue is now notable enough entirely independent of the State Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Main article is already extremely lengthy and a separate article purely dedicated to The Queue makes sense.

gbrading (ταlκ) 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The Queue should be kept separate from Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. It has so much information surrounding it, plus adding it to the main article regarding Queen Elizabeth's death would make that article very long. UpdateWindows (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The Queue itself has achieved notability and has had independent media covering separate from that of the state funeral itself. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The Queue is arguably notable in equal amount as the funeral itself. Anecdotally there is more discussion of the queue than the funeral itself and more concretely the queue has received international coverage for days. I'd wager that many future users of Wikipedia will be looking for the information and trivia surrounding the queue in comparative amounts to the funeral itself. GirlDoingMaths 21:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For the aforementioned reasons of notability. GuardianH (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close, the general consensus is that this article should be kept. As such, this discussion should be closed. Ashleyknowsthings (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move to something more sensible once things have returned to normal. The current name is suffering badly from recentism. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event has been incredibly significant, seeking headlines all around the world. The spectacle of the true length and events during this queue is one that should be remembered as an event itself rather than solely part of the Queen's funeral. This is the first time in a long time something like this has happened. Also, there are many more insignificant events and articles on Wikipedia. Something like the queue, with dozens of thousands of participants and it being published worldwide should not be on the chopping block. MichaelDeng06 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: But rename to something like Queue to Elizabeth II lying in state.(talk)
• Comment - I probably lean keep based on the level of coverage this has achieved, but I do wonder if the title should be changed. The Queue in the long term is probably too vague. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-name to Lying in state of Elizabeth II It seems pretty clear to me that the lying in state was a significant event that will have a lasting enough impact to have made it otherwise justify a spinoff from the main article about the death, funeral, etc., which risks becoming a bit of a grab-bag of miscellany. A lot more is known and has been said now about the queue than will become known in time about the laying in state, as accounts inevitably emerge from people who helped organise it but can't tastefully talk about their experience at present; and I'd assert that a lying in state in Westminster Hall is ipso facto a notable historical event given that we haven't had one since Churchill died, and you only have to spend five minutes in Westminster Hall to see, from the plaques on the floor commemorating previous occasions, the historical relevance of such events. The queue to get into it was significant and notable, we're all agreed about that, but in terms of how Wikipedia should structure its coverage I think an article focused on the lying in state that includes some coverage of the queue would be the best way to go. Likely will be how it eventually ends up regardles of the outcome of this AfD, so I suggest we just rename now, unleash the editors and have done with it. Lordrosemount (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but maybe have a redirect from "The Queue" as well, since when even the likes of CNN are calling it that there may be a need, for historical reasons, to understand the reference when reading old media coverage. Iceblink (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There was some Academic fieldwork into it https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/22064595.essex-university-survey-reveals-people-queuing-see-queen/ Okay possibly merge into an article on the Laying in State, but it's a distinct matter from the death and funeral of Elizabeth II. Still in the end passage of time will tell.. review in say 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.189.190 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Lying in state of Elizabeth II: The article is a victim of its own success and WP:RECENTISM. As indicated in the article, The Queue refers to the main queue of the event, while the article covers more than just that. For now a rename. We can circle back a couple of months later when editors decide to see if there are elements of RECENTISM to be removed/summarised here and other related articles. – robertsky (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That actually is a good idea. Maybe we should start a WP:RM once the deletion discussion is closed. Keivan.f^Talk 04:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this suggestion. Vida0007 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Do not merge. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The page is already large enough that it warrants its own page rather than just a section. And just because others feel it is not notable makes no difference. It is well sourced, and therefore notable. El Dubs (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename my initial inclination is to merge into Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#The_Queue but there is sufficient reliably sourced content for a standalone article. However, it should be renamed per Lordrosemount and Robertsky. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tons of content, large-scale, worldwide, specific coverage above that of the general death/funeral material, lasting notability and interest as a particularly unique feature of the whole process. Heck, it has more detailed, quality coverage in reliable sources from around the world than a significant percentage of notable Wikipedia articles overall. Oppose the various oblique renames. (The worldwide, wide coverage was not of the "lying in state of Elizabeth II", the coverage was of "The Queue"; it tries to shoehorn the actually notable item of international interest (The Queue) into a barely-notable item of far less interest (the formal lying in state process) to try to get it over the line to notability.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, there wouldn't have been any queue if it weren't for the lying in state; that was its entire purpose. It just seems silly to me when you have a major event that lots of people have queued to participate in to centre the queue instead of the event. To me the event is obviously the prior matter. Lordrosemount (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, coverage in multiple reliable sources, and a much discussed phenomenon. Would be too long as part of the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article, but could potentially form part of a Lying-in-State article depending on consensus. Bob talk 12:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you are keeping it, please pick a better ame for the article. 148.64.30.135 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would be disrespectful to Her Late Majesty's memory to delete such an important record of her State Funeral. 82.23.25.205 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is already very long, having to cover a whole series of events, announcements, ceremonies, processions, 2 lying-in-states and 3 actual funeral services. Merging into that would not be practical. "The Queue" has become a viable article topic in its own right, with a wealth of in-depth and international coverage. There are independent reliable sources covering a whole host of aspects: the cultural phenomenon, the subject of psychological study, the logistic and security challenges, the "queue-jumping" controversies, the attendance of celebrities, dignitaries and royals. the wub "?!" 14:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is a unique historic event and highly notable. Mattmm (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree it should be kept. It seems to me to have been a unique phenomenon, not 'rather unique', or 'very unique' but simply unique. It was the queue all future queues will aspire to and would be lost if simply subsumed into the death of the Queen or her funeral C.cohen (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Lying in state of Elizabeth II: I strongly believe this should be renamed to Lying in state of Elizabeth II. "The Queue" sounds very ambiguous, and it can mean so many other things. "The Queue" just sounds confusing. "Lying in state of Elizabeth II" sounds so much more appropriate than just "The Queue". Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the reasons above. ed g2s • talk 20:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I respectfully disagree with the nominators assessment and do believe this meets the criteria for WP:NEVENT. It has received widespread media coverage both within the UK and abroad and I do believe it will stand the test of time as a memorable event. There seems sufficiently sourced and encyclopedic content here and as per Nosebagbear above that would seem too much for inclusion in the existing Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article and hence this seems a reasonable spin-off. I wouldn't necessarily be against a rename, though, or perhaps a slight broadening in scope to cover the lying in state of Elizabeth II more broadly. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The Queue is catchy but hardly encyclopedic. Wikipedia has many articles less news worthy. The article is too big to merge. User-duck (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of the alternatives look good at the moment. I think there's no reasonable doubt that the topic is notable; the question is just which page it belongs on. In principle, merging with Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II would make sense, but that article is already a bit too long. The proposals for renaming to "Lying in state of Elizabeth II" seem to be describing a different article from The Queue: currently the article is focussed on the unusual phenomenon of such a large number of people forming a queue, and how the queue is organised. There's room for questioning whether The Queue will attract the persistent and in-depth coverage recommended by WP:NEVENT, but it's too early to assess that. If there's still doubt regarding notability a month from now, someone can renominate the page for deletion or other treatment. Jowa fan (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't particularly long at all? Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is clearly enough coverage now to demonstrate its lasting significance, and it is too long to merge into other articles which themselves are already on the long side. Edwardx (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all the above points made excellently by other editors and close as WP:SNOW IntUnderflow (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The actual numbers over the four days were not much more than for previous lying in state queues, but none of them had such heavy security restrictions to slow the progression, and none lasted close to the nearly five continuous days, night and day, for this queue. It was a unique phenomenon, I don't see it happening again for any well-known person's death. --Iceblink (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2022 (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.