Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everitt Road saga (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
→Everitt Road saga: reply |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Keep''' - [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial," and I think that bar is cleared here. Singapore's government actually has an article on this feud [http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/details/SIP_441_2005-02-02.html here], and if this much information is available in English, I can only speculate at how much press this has generated in Malay, Tamil, or Mandarin. I'm also unconvinced that anyone in Singapore would consider the [[Hatfield-McCoy feud]] more notable than we Westerners consider the Everitt Road saga. --[[User:Hyperbole|Hyperbole]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial," and I think that bar is cleared here. Singapore's government actually has an article on this feud [http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/details/SIP_441_2005-02-02.html here], and if this much information is available in English, I can only speculate at how much press this has generated in Malay, Tamil, or Mandarin. I'm also unconvinced that anyone in Singapore would consider the [[Hatfield-McCoy feud]] more notable than we Westerners consider the Everitt Road saga. --[[User:Hyperbole|Hyperbole]] 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
**I remain unconvinced. [http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/details/SIP_441_2005-02-02.html] goes to a website not by the govt, but a encyclopedia run by the local National Library. Their cited sources are just a re-hash of the same newspaper articles. [[User:Resurgent insurgent|Resurgent insurgent]] 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:44, 6 November 2007
Everitt Road saga
- Everitt Road saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Nominating this for deletion again, on essentially the same premise as the first nomination: It is still a "Non-notable argument that does not warrant a place in an encyclopedia."
Although there are about 50 results in Factiva for this incident (I have a PDF of all the results available by e-mail if anyone wants it), it remains a strictly local (Singapore-only) phenomenon, and an unremarkable one at that. It died down after the last court hearing a year ago and no articles - even in the Singapore press - have mentioned it since then. To quote User:Lar from the first nomination, this tiff has had zero influence on public policy and has not changed the lives of any otherwise notable persons. It is nothing like the Hatfield-McCoy feud because it has made little impact on the outside world.
In summary, the Chan family's antics may have generated "widespread" media coverage back 3-4 years ago, but no one remembers them now and WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete. Resurgent insurgent 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NOT#NEWS states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial," and I think that bar is cleared here. Singapore's government actually has an article on this feud here, and if this much information is available in English, I can only speculate at how much press this has generated in Malay, Tamil, or Mandarin. I'm also unconvinced that anyone in Singapore would consider the Hatfield-McCoy feud more notable than we Westerners consider the Everitt Road saga. --Hyperbole 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced. [1] goes to a website not by the govt, but a encyclopedia run by the local National Library. Their cited sources are just a re-hash of the same newspaper articles. Resurgent insurgent 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)