Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everitt Road saga (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per WP:NOT. Sandstein (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Everitt Road saga
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (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. Delete. Resurgent insurgent 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NOT 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. 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)
 * The National Library Board of Singapore is a government agency. I would tend to believe that if this "saga" is notable enough for the Singaporean government to preserve online, it's notable enough for Wikipedia.  --Hyperbole 07:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure whether I think this is notable or not, but it certainly isn't notable under the name "Everitt Road saga".  This name seems problematic. -  Revolving Bugbear  18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I realize that this incident made the news in Singapore, but that is fundamentally local coverage: Singapore is a country but it is also a single city, and this is a mere local news story.  It has been covered in the news there but not widely or in depth.  Mango juice talk 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.