Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarineMeat (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. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

MarineMeat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

WP:NOTNEWS This is an article about allegations without lasting effects. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Dethlock99 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) FYI, the first AFD was withdrawn before closure. It had not been decided and consensus was head toward delete.Dethlock99 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Note: This AfD is being debated in an external forum


 * Delete per nom. Insignificant subject without lasting notability. Prev Afd prob shouldn't have been closed given all the delete votes. Viridae Talk 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I pointed out in the previous AfD, this was the subject of multiple articles in major press sources (CNN and the Los Angeles Times are two we've found so far) extending over several months. It's clearly notable based on the press coverage. Everyking (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The one several months later, as far as I could tell, only said someone was added to those being investigated. "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." From wp:PERSISTENCE That would make the L.A. Times article still part of the event itself and not continuing coverage.  Dethlock99 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - should this one be withdrawn and the discussion pick up wit the 1st AfD, which was very improperly closed? Tarc (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I see nothing improper in closing my own AfD if I withdrew it -what is the point of withdrawing if it stays open? In any case there is already this one, no need for further hassle. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, because it was too late by then, as several users had already weighed in to delete. Your withdrawal at that point was improper. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Will be more careful in the future. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge Keep - There is indeed some source along time, and therefore some mention of the incident is warranted, but I'd be happier if someone finds a suitable merge target (which I didn't find). --- Cycl o pia talk  14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - Changed to full keep per MichaleQSchmidt sources search. -- Cycl o pia  talk  23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As per my argument above, that is still coverage of the event itself and not coverage continuing after the event. From my searches, the coverage seemed to die off long before the investigation ended.  Dethlock99 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia, I suggest that you examine the hits from MichaleQSchmidt's search. As I said below, they do not, in fact, show continuing coverage. Dethlock99 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT Secret account 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be necessary to justify this article's inclusion? Everyking (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the press coverage i'd desire would include in depth examination of this alleged event, placement into some kind of historical context, and a review of its real world impacts. In other words analysis and depth. Some sort of sustained interest over time from academia, the more thoughtful press, non-fiction book publishers, etc... would be useful. Lots of salacious scandal mongering with no actual analysis and consideration? Not enough for inclusion.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the non-admin close of a separate afd for this a few days ago (running at about 4 arguments for delete against 1 to keep) appropriate?.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Error of mine. Since I nominated it and I've withdrawn the nomination, I thought I was entitled to close -per meaning of "withdraw". Tarc, above, already made us notice that it probably has been improper. Lesson learned. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please notify the participants of the previous Afd. Viridae Talk 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of those things are difficult to define, but under a conservative interpretation I am doubtful that very many of Wikipedia's subjects would meet such a demanding standard. You have a list of articles you've created on your user page&mdash;do you feel they all meet the above standard? Everyking (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Same comment as in the last AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Opps. Missed the 1st AFD, else I would have opined there. The article will benefit from cleanup, expansion and proper sourcing per WP:ATD. While WP:NOTNEWS is always a consideration for stub articles, the continuing coverage over several years shows it to not be only a simple blip on headlines, with the instigation resulting in more stringent gidelines governing Marine's behaviors. This moves it from news to something more enduring. The CNN cite in the article is only one of many available. My search, shows the enduring nature of the investigation and its subsequent repercussions. I agree with BaliUltimate that the article will benefit from a more in-depth expansion, graduating it from news and reflecting the continued coverage shown in sources from 2000... a surmountable issue whose lack is not cause for deletion. HOWEVER... I do strongly suggest a title change to the article.. perhaps Marinemeat investigation, as the current title makes one think the article would be all about the porn website Marinemeat.com, and it is not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There has NOT been continuing coverage of the event. If you actually check the 21 hits, you will not find anything out side of the time frame of the initial report.  The hits the graph shows are search noise.  Dethlock99 (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete not often I agree with Cyclopia but .. yeah, WP:NOTNEWS, also unreferenced -  A l is o n  ❤ 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete agreeing with Alison, this is not important long term. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the article stands right now, insufficient references provided to pass notability per WP:GNG. Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS, all the coverage for this site stems from a single incident, and as such, this subject should not have an entry at all. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (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.