Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop


 * 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

Closing administrator's rationale
If you choose to add comments or wish to correct/ add to the closing administrator's comments, please do so in a separate level 2 section. Do *NOT* edit this section.

Raw count analysis
Note consensus is not a vote.


 * Delete
 * 1) User:Bongomatic (3 edits)
 * 2) User:W guice
 * 3) User:Nick-D (8 edits)


 * Keep
 * 1) User:Signaleer (3 edits)
 * 2) User:Raitchison (3 edits)
 * 3) User:Ryan4314 (8 edits)


 * Non-participatory
 * 1) User:SineBot

Arguments

 * Delete
 * No significant coverage other than in specialized and/or local media; fails WP:N
 * Provided sources are not reliable, 3rd party sources (specialised sites for military personnel)
 * Lacks 'reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' as required by WP:N
 * WP:N and WP:NOT


 * Keep
 * significant media coverage
 * Poor reasoning and logic
 * sources are independent of the subject
 * Notability is only reason for deletion, ghits is proof of notability
 * News 14 Carolina covered the story

Rough consensus
As pointed-out by those who opined to delete, the provided sources are indeed local news stories or press-release type military publications. We have never accepted these types of sources as evidence of notability. It is not that the sources cater to military topics, it is that the content of the stories are either user-generated, or republicative of press release material, or that they are strictly local coverage. The decision therefore is to delete the article.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:21, 13 January 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.

Comment by Ryan4314

 * The delete !voter Nick-D gave two of the news sources the "ok". Also News 14 isn't "local media", it covers the state of North Carolina, no one contested this point at the bottom of the AFD. Ryan 4314   (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The News14 piece is local coverage, meaning tHat it was presented as a local community interest piece. Local for the purposes of WP:N is not the size of the audience, but rather the intent of the story.  For example, while watching your local televison station's Live News at 5:00pm hour, if the story starts with "People across the nation are reeling today, in the wake of..." then it is not local news.  If the same anchorperson then says "In other news tonight, residents of the northwest neighborhood of Glen Ivy woke to a surprise this morning, as..." it is local coverage.  A source, itself, is not necessarily local, but the coverage may be.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the other 2 sources Nick ok'd?  Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've not got your facts straight. Please go back and read Nick's statement.  He said that the first source looks okay, based only on the URL, and that he could not get the page to load... so he could not possibly see if the source provides sufficient coverage to pass WP:N.  Then he said that the fourth source "might be OK".  He did not state that he checked it, and he did not change his delete recommendation.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should've rephrased that, it was meant as direct question to you, Do you think those 2 sources are ok? Can you post me a link to where the guideline on "local media" is please, I can't find it on WP:N or WP:RS. Unfortunately I've become more confused now, so lets work our way backwards. What kind of source would I have to get for it not to be called "local media"? Would I have to be written by a news agency outside of North Carolina? Ryan 4314   (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I've changed my mind, I'm not so bothered by this article's deletion that I wish to contest it further. I didn't write it, I wasn't part of the event, so it seems all seems bit fruitless to me now. I might chip in if it goes to a deletion review, but don't count on it. Wishing you all peace n love :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the effort Ryan 4314, much appreciated. -Signaleer (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Signaleer

 * I've read through the Notability article and I fail to see how the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force or U.S. Army (or other U.S. military public affairs/news agencies) fails to meet the requirements of WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signaleer (talk • contribs)
 * Please cite where it explicity states that the government's news (specifically the military) is not reliable or credible as a source of news since the rest of the world seems to believe that it is a credible and reliable source of news information. Please see Notability/Historical/Arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signaleer (talk • contribs)


 * I can certainly see how that would be confusing for you. You see, the thing is, sources themselves do not need to meet WP:N. The subject of the article needs to meet WP:N.  Having received significant coverage by multiple sources independant of the subject is the easiest way to pass WP:N.  The sources must be reliable sources; this means that they must be considered to be truthful, responsible, and independant of the subject.  And don't forget the non-trivial requirement of WP:N, either.  For the military to publicize the volunteer efforts of servicemembers is commonplace.  This is not something unique to the military, though... the story is the kind of thing that gets covered locally.  In the sense that the military publications target a very specific audience, locally is not applied geographically, but logically.  The story covered is of special interest to the audience of the publications, hence virtually local.  Sources that seem to be merely publishing a press release or community service announcement about the event are not applicable for the purposes of notability.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)