Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems


 * 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. Courcelles 23:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:N This article is an orphan and this group lacks notability. The only notability seems to be a relationship with Shannen Rossmiller who was instrumental in discovering Ryan G. Anderson's attempts to aid al-Qaeda. But according to RS, Rossmiller did not act as a member of this group, or any other, while she was engaging Anderson for the FBI. This group was earlier known as 7Seas and I've nominated that for deletion for the same reasons. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Two names for a seven person self-described "Global Security and Intelligence Team". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Regardless how much 7 Seas / Phoenix were involved in the Anderson incident, Rossmiller stated she was a member of 7 Seas as per this book, this book, and even in her own autobiography. Rossmiller is the focus of this Seattle Times article corrected Seatle Times URL, but 7 Seas garners substantial coverage as a secondary subject.  This article features 7 Seas as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rossmiller explains she did not share anything with the group in this Wired article: .  And the group notability comes only by it's association with her.  Agree with Amatulic.  Notability WP:NOTINHERITED.  Even the founder, Brent Astley doesn't have a wikipedia article.  That's how not-notable it is.  Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - The group may have become more noticed because of the actions of Rossmiller, but there is coverage about the group that goes beyond WP:INHERITED. I made an error in the cutting and pasting and linked to the wrong item above for the Seattle Times, and have corrected the link.  I've also linked above to an ABC article that covers them as the primary topic.  The Houston Chronicle also covers this group.  The fact that the founder doesn't have an article is irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Houston Chronicle article begins with mention of Shannen Rossmiller (and in fact, it's all about her).  Again, it's only by her notability that the group is mentioned.  They would be totally obscure if she had not been associated, however loosely, with them.  The 'group' has no notability without her. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - And Michelle Obama is only notable because she is the wife of Barrack Obama. WP:INHERITED does not automatically mean that the related subject cannot be notable itself.  The sources I have presented satisfy WP:GNG in that they are reliable sources (major media), and the coverage is significant (beyond just a passing mention).  When something satisifies our inclusion criteria, then it should be included. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - No, you cannot compare Michelle Obama to this. This group, under any name, has not been credited with anything except that at one time they had a loose association with Shannen Rossmiller.  Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - The Michelle Obama thing was a just a bit of hyperbole to point out that inherited notability can still meet the WP:GNG. I have provided multiple sources that contain significant coverage about the group.  Which part of the WP:GNG do you feel has not been addressed by the provided sources? -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Every source you've provided only shows Rossmiller's accomplishments.  The "group" has done nothing of any notability on its own.  Without reference to Rossmiller, there would be no reason for any newspaper to write a story about them.  Malke 2010 (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I'm not disputing that the work of Rossmiller is what got 7seas the coverage. However, we don't determine notability based on our own personal opinion of whether subject has done something worthwhile, we determine notability based on the existence of coverage in reliable sources.  Are you disputing that they have been covered in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with delete (not notable enough on its own), but any relevant info from this article could be added to Rossmiller. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think enough has been said by the two of us.  It's time to let other editors look at the "sources," Google the company names and see for themselves, and then make their own decision.  Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: If this article is deleted, then 7Seas will also need to be deleted under WP:CSD. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Besides, articles is a thinly disguised advertisement. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:31, 19 September 2011 (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.