 |
- 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 redirect to Jay McGraw#RumorFix. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- RumorFix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Appears to be more of an advertisement. Edited by a media group. reddogsix (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a relevant entertainment news site that is often quoted by mainstream media including CBS News, the Huffington Post and People magazine. It is on par with www.celebuzz.com and www.gossipcop.com, which both have Wikipedia pages. Richardayoub (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Sl33pyriceboi (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Why is this article even flagged? It's just like any other entertainment entity/icon here on wiki. How is it advertising? That's a basic bio of what the page is about
- Comment. A site can be quoted, but being briefly mentioned is not the same thing as having an article or coverage about the website. It's very common for a person, site, paper, or television show to be used as a reference in some format but still fall short of notability guidelines. As far as other articles go, the existence of articles on other websites does not factor into this deletion discussion, as the existence of similarly themed articles could mean that the website you're referencing does have coverage to show notability or it could just be an article that has yet to be flagged for deletion. All that matters is that you can show that the website has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Trivial mentions or references from another paper/magazine/site/etc does not count. It shows that it's been mentioned and that it might be usable as a reliable source for other articles, but not that it has notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, as far as its association with notable persons goes, that does not extend automatic notability to the website, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless I can find RS that's about the website specifically, I'm leaning towards redirecting this to Jay McGraw since he is one of the lead figures involved in the website's creation.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jay_McGraw#RumorFix. The website did receive some coverage when it first started up, but other than some news articles announcing that it was launching, there has been a lack of coverage about the website itself. Mentions in other sites or in magazines such as People show that it could be used as a RS, but being a RS doesn't guarantee that it would automatically pass notability guidelines. This doesn't seem to have much notability outside of the people who launched and run it, so I'm proposing that this be redirected to the section on McGraw's article that I created for this. It might be that in the future the website receives more coverage other than trivial mentions in various publications, but until that point it should be redirected. No amount of trivial mentions, no matter where those might be, makes up for a lack of in-depth coverage in RS and to show that this website meets notability guidelines we'd need something to show that it got more in-depth coverage outside of its launch. So far I don't see that it's received it and if not for McGraw becoming involved, I doubt it would have received that. Most of the launch coverage gives equal focus to McGraw, hence why I think he'd be the best redirect target.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Tokyogirl79 thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that RumorFix should be listed as part of Jay McGraw's article -- that's a great idea. But, I also believe that it is "notable" on its own account.
You may know that a publication, whether it be print or electronic, gains "notability" -- not by people writing articles about them -- but by others quoting them.
Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia -- and because of that Wikipedia is on the forefront of recognizing digital properties like RumorFix.
As you may know RumorFix has gained respect and recognition of the following: CBS News ABC News CNN Huffington Post Entertainment Tonight Extra Access Hollywood WetPaint Entertainment People Magazine Us Weekly omg! Yahoo MSN Wonderwall Perez Hilton and almost 2,000 others
RumorFix is not unlike the Pasadena Star News,[1] which has it's own article. It's not unlike WetPaint that has it's own article.[2]
It is a publication that is respected, quoted and notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.192.75 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2013
- That's not really how notability works here on Wikipedia. Topics pass notability guidelines because they receive coverage that directly talks about them specifically rather than just name dropping them in relation to other subjects. What sets WetPaint as notable is that the site has received coverage about the site itself in multiple venues such as Time Magazine listing it as one of their best websites for 2007. RumorFix hasn't gotten that yet. They've been mentioned in various places, but they're all trivial mentions that say that the site has commented on the story du'jour or mentioning the site as an aside. The news outlets and sites you're mentioning didn't actually talk about the site itself as part of a news story. Even if some of them have, you have to show that there is more coverage other than people commenting on the site's launch, which is conspicuously absent at this point in time. The thing about trivial mentions is that no amount of trivial mentions make up for a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A site mentioning the site is not the same thing as the website receiving coverage that would be considered showing notability. It's just far too soon for this to have its own article. It might merit its own article in the future, but for right now there just isn't enough to justify it passing WP:WEB. But in general though, pointing out that such and such a newspaper or website has an article doesn't really pertain to this AfD. Those are those websites and papers and RumorFix is RumorFix. The presence of another article means nothing, as it could just be that those other articles haven't been nominated for deletion or that they meet notability guidelines that RumorFix does not.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe the mentions of RumorFix by respected publications qualifies as a "trivial mention." According to the guidelines, RumorFix must have "information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." And, when AP, People, USA Today, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, Huffington Post, LA Times and others have written articles quoting RumorFix, they have written a complete article about a news story that was broken by RumorFix. It is not a "trivial mention." They have rewritten a story that first broke on RumorFix and have pulled quotes directly from the article -- in most cases 75 percent of the article is from information gathered by RumorFix.
Richardayoub (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect To Jay_McGraw#RumorFix as per TokyoGirl. Significant promotional editing and sockpuppetry can't get over the fact that this still fails WP:WEB. There is no standalone notability outside of the relationship with McGraw. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2013 (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.
- 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. While I appreciate the amount of work done on improving the article consensus is to delete. I would be happy to userfy the page if requested so that it can be maintained until more information concerning the breed is available. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Murray River Curly Coated Retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
Not mentioned in any works outside of breeder/kennel websites. Nonnotable variety of the curly-coated retriever. TKK bark ! 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
User 'Tikuko' obviously has no knowledge regarding the MRCCR, futhermore should be banned from any further edits due to disregard and the users lack of any knowledge what so ever on these dogs. As a proud owner of Austrailas unique breed of Retriever for over 20 years and former chairman of the MRCCR association;[4] Please see http://www.mrccr.org/ and contact the association for futher detail. Recently the MRCCR underwent DNA testing which result in that they are a breed of there own right and not a CCR. There is an application to have this breed registered as a sporting dog, due to it heritage of hunting use which still occurs today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRCCR (talk • contribs) 04:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — MRCCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I do not consider being interested in a specific topic to be a negative. I do consider people who edit multiple sites or sites that they are not-knowledgeable about are not educated on the subject and should discuss their grievances before editing. merging or putting forward a proposal for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markable1 (talk • contribs) — Markable1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Markable1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Comment - The fact that the entire article is referenced to the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever website is part of the reason I nominated this article. No original research. This is not the place to discuss your grievance with me. --TKK bark ! 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- As already explained there has been original research by DNA verification, this has shown that the Murray is a distinct breed. Markable1
The argument for deletion is very weak and unsubstantiated. Although I am involved with an unrelated retriever breed I have no affiliation whatsoever with Murrays. This breed is currently fulfilling the requirements to be listed as a separate breed from the CCR, and any research which is current will show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.19.251 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 101.119.19.251 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Comment - Where did you even come from? Were you told to come here? --TKK bark ! 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Wow Tikuko, that's a hostile remark. Not everyone has the time or energy to be a general editor, but only come out of the woodwork for things which they passionately care about. (Although I give you points for not raising to the bait after MRCCR's uncalled for attack on you earlier.) I haven't edited Wikipedia for some years now, but I trust that doesn't disqualify me from commenting here. Additional comments will be added below. Limeguin (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Apologies, I did not mean to come across as hostile, I was just trying to figure out what was going on. --TKK bark ! 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have owned Murray River Curly Coated Retrievers for 53 years. They are a separate and distinct breed from Curly Coated Retrievers which I have also owned. They have been a distinct breed in Australia most likely dating pre 1850. We have evidence from newspapers from the 1840s and photographs of similar dogs from the 1850s in Australian online collections. I have researched these dogs for the past 7 years, I started the Yahoo group I wrote the original wiki page which was written well before the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Association was formed or any DNA testing carried out.
- Comment D_mentias, if you have evidence from newspapers from the 1840s, could you put them up somewhere on the Internet where they are visible to others? I don't think it is fair to expect Wikipedia editors to sign up to a Yahoo Group or Facebook in order to see this evidence. On the other hand, I also don't think it is fair for editors to dismiss such evidence without seeing it if they haven't at least made a good-faith attempt to view such evidence. Limeguin (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2013 Printed evedence of the acknowledgement of the Murray can be found in the book The Curly Coated Retriever -Audrey Nicholls 1992, pp. 89-90. Markable1.
Now you try to tell me they are a non notable variant of the CCR(they actually pre-date CCRs) or that I am advertising the breed organization? We don't even have a Murray Breeder listed. The listing for Soft Maple, P. Mathis and CCR were there because of references and sparsity of other sources. CCR Australia does acknowledge the Murray as a separate breed.
I wish to protect and preserve the Murray for all future Australians. The Murray is a very iconic Australian dog and symbol. D_mentias D mentias (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC) p.s users have not been canvassed for this page however the proposed deletion and reasons were shared on the FB and Yahoo groups and the Association notified. MRCCR owners and supporters are very passionate about this true blue little Aussie retriever I would expect more supporters will weigh in on any argument. D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — D mentias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - users have not been canvassed for this page however the proposed deletion and reasons were shared on the FB and Yahoo groups and the Association notified That is very nearly the definition of canvassing.
- Everything you said is nice, but you (and all the other comments) have still failed to address my concerns with the breed. --TKK bark ! 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Further research into the subject helps nothing. There is a passing mention of the breed here but this is not enough to establish notability. Here it is stated that the "Curly-coated retriever... are used on duck in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River." It says nothing of a Murray River-specific breed or variety. Here it is yet again referred to as simply a curly-coated retriever - "In Australia they are used in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River, duck being the chief quarry, and here again they are spoken of by their admirers as being the best workers and stayers of any form of Gun Dog, the steadiest, the most tender mouthed, and quite unsurpassed in water." The first five pages of a google web search for "Murray River Curly Coated Retriever" did not turn up any reliable secondary sources. There are no results on Google Scholar except for the first book I linked and a citation to an article on the Tweed Water Spaniel.
As far as the sources cited in the article itself:
- 1, 4 and 5 are dead
- 2 is an article written by User:D mentias on his personal website and is original research and a primary source.
- 3 is to a Yahoo group run by the breed's association, so it's original research, a primary source and probably not reliable. It's also a closed group, so if anyone cites anything to it, it can't be accessed.
I am still thoroughly convinced that this breed/variety is not notable enough to warrant having its own Wikipedia article. If deletion fails, I propose a merge or redirect to Curly-coated retriever, as all the sources above seem to believe that's what this dog is. --TKK bark ! 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Re the links. 1 and 5 are indeed dead. But since the original article was written and referenced in Sept 2008 this is not surprising.No 3 is not the Associations website but a Yahoo group which actually pre-dated the original wiki article. No 4 is current and takes you to the National Library or Australia Trove which is a digitised newspaper database and relates to the earliest sighting of a Murray like Retriever in Australia. 1844. I only added this link yesterday so I know it is not dead. No 2 Mathis article I did not write, his information is incorrect at the MRCCR did not originate on the Murray River in New Zealand but was included originally because of the sparsness of information. In fact the only thing I have ever written was the original wiki page which over the years others have contributed too or altered. The links you purported to find were of poor quality and the illustration even poorer.
Th FB and Yahoo groups are closed for a reason, if you leave a group open people come along and spam it not unlike a wiki page only worse. The Yahoo group is not owned by the Association as contributers here attest either are the FB groups. However anyone may apply for membership. The Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Association is also available to owners and supporters should they wish to pay their dues and join. They also publish a newsletter which is available on the FB group.
As to the breed not being notable enough. I note that its probably closest relative the American Water Spaniel has its own breed page on wiki as does its close relative the Boykin spaniel. In Australia other iconic Australian dogs like the Koolie and the Australian Kelpie also have wiki pages. The MRCCR is arguably an older breed than both these dogs. The fact that this iconic Australian retriever's wiki page was proposed for deletion on Australia Day was noted by owners and supporters.
I also repeat that this dog is not a sub species of the CCR. DNA reseach carried out in 2012 demonstrated that the MRCCR is a DNA proven breed not closely related to others. This was published in the Murray Mail no 8 in Dec 2012 which is available on the FB site. The Murray Association hold the fuller report. I imagine CCR owners and breeders would be up in arms if the MRCCR was included in their breed.
In Australia the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is often referred to as just a Curly Retriever. They are probably more common than CCRs. There has been immense confusion between the MRCCR and the CCR for probably a century. Both CCR and MRCCR people are working hard to distinguish between the breeds and the wiki pages for both the CCR and the MRCCR contribute towards this. Your suggestions that the Murray is a non notable CCR would put us back a century again D mentias (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC) D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The links that I found where the only mentions of the breed I could find that were not directly associated with the retriever's club. Again, that means there is a lack of secondary sources, which means that the dog is not notable. Liking something also doesn't make it notable enough to include. It doesn't matter if every single dog in Australia is a Murray retriever, if there's nothing written about them then it's not notable.
- And again, you can DNA-test until the cows come home but unless it's published somewhere reliable it won't make a whit of difference.
- The other Australian dog breeds you mentioned have substantial secondary sources available, so the comparison is essentially moot. As far as nominating the article on Australia Day, sorry but I've never even heard of that so I couldn't have possibly done it intentionally.
- You act as if I'm conspiring against you but I'm not. I'm acting in what i believe to be the best interest of Wikipedia, and every effort I've made to improve your article to comply with WP:MOS has been reverted (and in violation of the three revert rule to boot)). --TKK bark ! 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Having several curlies and then having been to Australia to see the MRCCR first hand, I can say with no hesitation it is a different breed. You want proof, and proof is given here. But it's not 'official' enough for 'Tikuko'. User 'Tikuko', find something better to do with you time, like graduating!! This dog is a different breed and you have no proof otherwise. Silent stalker (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Silent Stalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- Silent stalker, please keep the personal remarks to yourself. The question isn't whether MRCCR is a separate breed, but whether it is a notable breed that requires its own entry in an encylopedia. Based on the lack of sources (books, newspaper or magazine articles, movies staring famous Murrays, etc.) this does not seem to be a notable (famous, well-known) breed, and probably should be included as a subsection under Curly Coated Retrievers or similar. Philip Mathis describes the Murray as a smaller variety of the Curly. Regardless of how wonderful and distinctive the dogs themselves are, and I know a Murray and he is a lovely dog, I think that it is fair to say that outside of the circle of fanciers, the Murray is not yet well-known even among dog fancier circles. No matter how worthy the breed, Wikipedia is not intended for fanciers to promote their well-loved breed. Get Murrays mentioned in books and newspapers, then Wikipedia can follow. Limeguin (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Limeguin I would argue that most Australians when thinking of a Curly Coated Retriever actually think or a MRCCR. To them all curlies are small and liver. They are not aware of the taller pedigreed type. The continued confusion between the MRCCR and the CCR does both noble breeds a diservice. They are notable as Australia's only Australian developed retriever. The wiki page in a small way demonstrate the difference. There is also much interest in the MRCCR from Europe and North America, we have members on Yahoo an FB who are closely following their development and one day wish to own one. It is not just an Australian rare breed dog there is genuine international interest...look Silent Stalker seemed pleased to meet one(I don;t know who they are) D mentias (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC) D_mentias
- Delete. None of the sources provided are reliable. The sources given are 1) a blog, 2) a yahoo group, 3) a link to a newspaper from 1844; unfortunately, the classified ads, 4) an article mostly about regular CCRs, with only a two-sentence mention of this dog, 5) the MRCCR breeder's association, and 6) and 7) are Facebook groups. This breed is simply not notable enough for an article. Howicus (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Howicus, if the 1844 article is a newspaper advertisment, that is evidence that people in 1844 routinely expected others to recognise the name of the breed. That at least is (minor) evidence of notability. Limeguin (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Further links have been added. The 1844 links was to prove how long this type of dog had been in Australia. There is photographic evidence of an 1893 MRCCR on wiki that I put up yesterday.The original photo is held by the State Library Victoria, it is used with permission. The dog breeds true to type 120 years later. I could look for further newspaper and journal articles but as you say you are a self proclaimed deletionist. I added the article or blog by Mr Westfall suggesting that the Murray may be related to an earlier and extinct retriever the Norfolk.
- I then added the full breed description written by Ms R.Bell in 2012 and added a link to a CCR description which demonstrates that they are indeed separate dogs. It is not only size but the fact that Murrays don't come in black proves this. I also added photographic evidence of the difference in size between the breeds.
The Mathis article does reference Murrays as a smaller different dog. YOu need to read the erticle "This smaller version is a very popular duck dog, found mostly along the Murray River, where it is not surprisingly called the Murray River Curly. The River Curlies are, for the most part, unregistered with The Kennel Club, and many River Curly fans feel it should be considered a separate breed."(http://www.landaracurl.com/Origin.html) Mr Mathis has published more fully on curlies, Australian readers would be wary as he refers to them as NZ. A book review here expresses this concern http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2RC8NTGDWMBIK/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2RC8NTGDWMBIK
Now the DNA evidence has been published but it is in a Murray MAil Newsletter that you claim doesn't count. It is available for download on the FB site.It is not as if we are hiding it. You have to nbe a member but that is easy. The DNA testing was organized by the Koolie club of Australia who themselves had trouble getting their breed acknowledged.
The Australian Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is an old and iconic Australian breed pre-dating even the kelpie. It survived for 160+ years without a breed club or recognition by dog authorities. It has bred true to type for at least 120 years going on photographic evidence. The yahoo group started in 2006. The original wiki page was written in 2008. The Murray Association was formed in 2010. DNA testing proving a serparate breed carried out in 2011 and 2012. The wiki page needed cleaning up but in one foul swoop you are trying to remove them from the record entirely...all on our National Day. I tried to simplify the wiki page but you are asking for even higher levels of proof. Today I added more information and photos again clogging the site. At the same time you have not demonstrated any knowledge of this unique Australian retriever and even less of CCRs to which they are not related as suggested by user Silent Stalker. D mentias (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- D_mentias, there is no point in digging up more and more evidence that Murrays are a separate breed. That is not being questioned. What is being questioned is whether or not they are a notable (famous, well-known) breed. If not, then they should be included as a subsection of some other related, but more notable, breed. If you believe that Curlies are the wrong breed, then please nominate another one.
- Also, please stop bring up Australia Day. For starters, it's Australia Day, not Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Day. (If it were MRCCR Day, that would be excellent proof that it was a notable breed.) Secondly, as an Aussie myself I know that Australia is the centre of the universe, but most poor benighted foreigners don't know or care. This is not a personal attack against Aussies, Australia, mateship, the Anzacs or Murrays. It is a simple question of whether or not the MRCCR breed is notable enough to get its own article in a encyclopedia. Go out and promote the breed. Get dog fancier magazines to talk about it. Get newspaper articles written about Murrays. Get Dog Encyclopedias to list them. Then Murrays will be a notable breed and can graduate from a subsection to a full article on its own. Limeguin (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The MRCCR is not related to the CCR. It is a gundog, that is what they have in common they both sit on the gundog spectrum along with other retrievers, spaniles, setters and pointers. Many gundogs of less note have their own page. The Murray is a purebred not unlike a Bull Arab. Neither have pedigrees yet the Bull Arab has its own Wiki page. WE have got magazines to write artcles(shooting Tine Dec 2012) They are listed on easypetmd.com as an Australian dog. There is genuine interest from the wider dog world in the MRCCR. D mentias (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentias
- Comment D mentias I cannot find any reference on the Internet to a "Shooting Tine" or "Shooting Time" magazine. Can you provide a link to the magazine, or tell us where it is available? Limeguin (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Further comment D mentias, you give easypetmd.com as evidence of notability, but it actually undercuts your argument. Easypetmd clearly states that the "Murray River Curly Coated Retriever" is a New Zealand breed, not Australian, and is a smaller variety of the Curly Coated Retriever. To quote:
The New Zealand version of the breed, however, is considerably smaller in size than that of the proper English Curley. This new smaller version has become a popular duck dog in New Zealand found manly around the Murray River, where they are known as the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever.
Limeguin (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- EasyPetMD isn't really a reliable source, anyways. It's an SEO scraper isn't it? --TKK bark ! 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- D mentias, please read WP:Other Stuff Exists. The existence of similar articles should not affect the discussion here. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Howicus (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Additional comment to above - I have spent time today trying to resolve a number of format issues in the article, which has meant I have also attempted to sort out problems with the references. These actions have confirmed to me that sources are to blogspots, facebook, yahoo groups etc - these would normally all be removed from articles. Other references do not support the arguments stated (only referring to CCRet from the area, rather than an individual breed). The fact people are evidently passionate about these dogs does not prove the MRCCR is currently at a stage to justify inclusion as a separate encyclopaedia article. I believe a merge into the Curly-coated Retriever article might be a compromise until further notability can be established. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Sagaciousphil for resolving the format errors. My expertise in the MRCCR does not extend to this. All I have ever wanted is for people to distunguish between the MRCCR and other breeds. I believe someone tried to add the MRCCR to the CCR wiki page yesterday which has already been reversed by another wiki contributor. CCR contributors and owners understand that these are separate non-related breeds. Many lesser known Australian and overseas breeds have there own breed page.If I want to learn about a breed of dog the first place I look is wiki. Not all these dogs are registered and pedigreed or recognized outside their own country. We have had a separate inclusion as a wiki article since Sept 2008 yet only this last weekend other contributors proposed the page for deletion. If the MRCCR page is deleted interested people will not be able to learn about them without much trolling through google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D mentias (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, if this page is deleted, searching for Murray River Curly Coated Retriever would take people directly to the MRCCR website. Howicus (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge - I would say to merge it to Curly Coated Retriever. The breed obviously has quite a following, just not many scholarly sources or sources in general. I did find one more source here by searching the National Library of Australia. - cReep talk 07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue against merging as would any CCR person. Limeguin already added the MRCCR to the CCR page. Within 24 hours this was reversed by a user I think called Curlycoat who understands that the MRCCR and CCR are not variants of the same dog. The CCR has a long and traceble pedigree is larger and comes in 2 colours.Merging is unacceptable to CCR breeders.
- Comment: with all due respect to both D mentias and Curlycoat, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for everyone, and not to be held hostage to the parochial concerns of a tiny minority of breed enthusiasts. CCR breeders are not the only people who determine whether or not merging is acceptable. While breeder's opinions will be given due weight, the deciding factor is 'notability', not DNA analysis. Limeguin (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The MRCCR as yet us not recognised by canine authorties(about to be recognized as a sporting breed). It Hx in Australia extends back to the 1840s and was believed to be on the goldfields. There are more pictures on trove including this one[5]. Users of the net do not always know what they are looking for. If they are not sure of a breed they may look up a few types, this is where wiki is usefull. I have learnt of 3-4 similar breeds to the MRCCR from wiki then I followe d the links to learn more. THese days wiki is often the first port of call to people seeking information
D mentias (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I was thinking deeply about this and my first vote was to be keep, but the sourcing made me change of opinion. The ones featured on the article are not confident at all and cannot be categorized as reliable, and a short search at Google showed not much reliable sources to add. Unless I am missing something, this type of breed was not very popular, or maybe it is not (or never was) popular enough to deserve a thorough biological/anatomical/etc study or research. As it is, and after my search, I can't simply support the inclusion of this article on the encyclopedia. — ṘΛΧΣ21 05:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have only just started to look at this site but what strikes me (as a professional research librarian) is the lack of organisation around the arguments. I would suggest that the arguments for and against the MRCCR be articulated and the evidence cited. I own a MRCCR and my friend has a CCR and to me it is obvious that they are separate breeds. However, as a researcher I believe the best way to sort this out is not by slanging at each other but allowing each member to have their turn to present the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.243 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, I was able to find a couple of trivial mentions in independent sources (such as this), but nothing substantial about this dog breed. It would be most helpful if sources discussing the breed in depth could be provided, that are independent of breeders' associations or other groups with a vested interest in promoting the breed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1
REF THIS BLP13:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Have spent at least 11 hours in background research. A definite breed, as is also obvious if looking at various Youtube videos. It is apparent there is a large and a small variant. Clear rust colored or "liver" coats caused by a red/brown dominant gene. Definitely not a curly coated retriever which are clearly larger black dogs. Have started to place in references. One should not expect large kennel associations to recognize breeds they do not believe they would make money on in gathering situations. Dog politics has been well evident for years. It should not be expected that U.S. associations or books would be the best source for material, but rather sources found in Australia. What is important in Wikipedia is "verifiability", not necessarily truth. Although a good editor will always incorporate truth and strive to achieve this with a greater effort. Beginning to remove out the advertisement style of the wording. Merging is definitely not appropriate as totally different (unless one merged both the articles into a retriever one but then the article size would be way too large). Looks more like a wording issue and a referencing issue to this editor. Will continue more tomorrow evening my time as am too tired now. T.D. (Los Angeles).--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Spent 15 more hours of researching, and now working through article. Adding more reference cites. Ending now. Will resume Monday, February 18.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Spent another 15 hours background work, and did further editing and reference cites. Will continue tomorrow as now tired.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Notation: Separately, and without requiring consensus, this article is keepable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as this is related to Canis lupus familiaris, itself inherently notable, as they are "all subspecies of the gray wolf" (which is also inherently notable). See WP article Dog breed:
- Intro section which states in part: "Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, which are all of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans..." "The term dog breed is also used to refer to natural breeds or landraces, which arose through time in response to a particular environment that included humans..."
- The historical citations and photos, both over a century ago, and in present time show this.
- Description section which states in part: "Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs."
- This grouping has historically been noted as per the citations and photos, both over a century ago, and in modern times. MRCCR is a grouping recognized now by a breed club which established itself in 2010, if not before (2006). This alone gives it notability status.
- Classification section which states in part: "In biology, subspecies, race and breed are equivalent terms. Breed is usually applied to domestic animals; species and subspecies, to wild animals and to plants; and race, to humans. Colloquial use of the term dog breed, however, does not conform to scientific standards of taxonomic classification. Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies since they are all considered a subspecies of the gray wolf..."
- Being a subspecie of the gray wolf, it is therefore notable, as are other dog groupings.
- Notation: Separately, from above, sufficient editing and referencing work has now been done that the article is keepable at this point. Continued work by others, or myself, can continue to improve the article.
- Notation: Collectively, or in any part combination thereof, this article is keepable for some or all of the aforementioned items.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, here is WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES in its entirety. "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD." Note that this only confers notability for species, not dog breeds or other sub-groupings. The MCCR does not have a valid name. Also, the quote you gave states that "Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies", so you can't argue that this breed is "notable as a subspecies". I'm not trying to invalidate the work you've done on this. I'm just saying that your arguments for keeping without consensus are invalid. Howicus (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this would then require that all dog, and probably cat, articles would have to be deleted in Wikipedia. That seems illogical.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, because most of these other breeds have been extensively written about in third party sources, so they meet WP:GNG. Take a look at, say, the Border collie article. --TKK bark ! 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This seems to be of interest only to the group of people making baseless arguments here. And maybe all their friends. But I can find no reliable sources that could establish this as being remotely notable. Fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree; WP:GNG met. Another 12 hours. Have now come across hundreds of general and major newspapers with articles. The term to generally use is brown curly coated retrievers. The article name could be changed to this but I think the existing MRCCR should be used in its current context. I have placed numerous references in the article's beginning. I could literally bombard with more. It is all over the place over the decades of a century. WP:GNG has now been met as all these references are in major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. I would not expect U.S. editors, like myself or those objecting, to set the standard on this Australian dog icon. The baseless arguments statement is rather stupid. The baseless view seems to now have been contradicted by the public newspaper articles. I am even more surprised now after all the personal editing effort and am personally satisfied that the article should be kept based upon the uncovered evidence. I came across this article because it was next in a log concerning a physics article that I was working on. I am not surprised the early commenters have not continued on. You collectively seem rather a hostile group which could have otherwise improved the article or assisted instead. Having read through them now, I am quite suspicious that proposing the article's deletion, on Australia Day no less!, was not intentional. The world is a much bigger place than U.S. only views and prejudice. I can understand the article supporters since they put in a great deal of input time, but I am somewhat appalled at the other side. Confirmed deletionist? What kind of attitude is that. That alone shows bias and non-objectivity. Will continue with further editing tomorrow. Ending with a middle ground supporting good editing viewpoint instead; Q.E.D.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2013 (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.
- 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. If the creator or anyone else would like the page to be userfied please let me know. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Murder of Brandon Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:NOT#NEWS. The college player wasn't notable when he was alive, and his death, one among thousands of murders each year in the USA, doesn't seem anything more than a local affair Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple third party reliable sources on the subject. ESPN, USA Today, Fox Sports for example. WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not apply as this is not (1) a first-hand report, (2) routine reporting, (3) a Who's Who, nor (4) a diary. For a so-called "local affair" it sure is getting a lot of national coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 5. Snotbot t • c » 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Paulmcdonald, although I will note that I was not aware this was more than a local story until I saw those references. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:VICTIM; "The victim...consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event." - it appears the only well-documented "historical event" the victim participated in was his own murder. The documentation noted on the article is basically a wall of similar coverage containing issue related to only that one event. Put 1,000 mentions down if you please, but it's still just one event. Ren99 wha?
04:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment the article is not about the victim, the article is about the crime itself. Were the article about the victim, you would have a case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've noticed quite a few "Murder of..." articles pass through here recently citing WP:NOT#NEWS instead of WP:NNEWS. I'm a bit concerned at whether these articles meet the latter, particularly WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EFFECT. Funny Pika! 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Response can't speak to the other cases, but this case has had continued coverage at least as information comes up. It's a relatively recent event, so I'd hate to play crystal ball at this point. Where one guideline stops, another one begins...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Points well taken. Now the question(s) becomes; "Is there need for a preponderance of articles concerning murders per se' each and every time"; 1) one occurs 2) is what we'd call "current" 3) someone, somewhere, has mentioned in sources that someone else, somewhere else heard about 4) has some social relevance or imperative that would merit it's need for an article over, say, similarly generated article for a non-sports figure, such as a brilliant lab student killed in a violent border clash with radical Canadian guerillas, or even regular ol' Kansas kid falls in hole and gets killed in China by unsolved bandits. Now not to base this on "X has this, so Y has this too", but rather the entirety of "do we need it at all anyway in such volume"? Must we languish in sullen news while we ponder here, and once it is solved, will it be of significance sufficient to maintain later, or are we simply creating a ghetto of articles to "get around to fixing again" later? All just curios. Ren99 wha? 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Need Wikipedia is not about what we "need" because, quite simply, we don't really "need" Wikipedia itself. We "want" Wikipedia. As to some of the other articles you find interesting, you might read up on the 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing or maybe the story of Joseph (son of Jacob). Not exact matches to what you reference, but not far off either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment "Want" and "Need" are conceptual ideals, each dependent on individual interpretation. The context in form above is simple convenience. But there is no loss on the idea of use - is it useful for perpetuity, or is it simply there for perpetuity? Dying on the moon is one thing, but if no one knew of it, what difference would it make or concern? Like a bear in the woods, if not heard...is it really worth separating from some other bear event? And of course, there is the besmirchment of another young man who participated in sports, and met an unfortunate, unsolved, and untimely end of violence. Article after article of mysterious killings, etc in all proportions containing thus? The facts are not even known in this particular article's events (note: "ongoing investigation") Ren99 wha? 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Comment Maybe you're right. Gotta watch the Chewbacca reasoning. Let's see who else comes along :) Ren99 wha? 04:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe you're right. Gotta watch the Chewbacca reasoning. Let's see who else comes along :) Ren99 wha?
- Comment "Want" and "Need" are conceptual ideals, each dependent on individual interpretation. The context in form above is simple convenience. But there is no loss on the idea of use - is it useful for perpetuity, or is it simply there for perpetuity? Dying on the moon is one thing, but if no one knew of it, what difference would it make or concern? Like a bear in the woods, if not heard...is it really worth separating from some other bear event? And of course, there is the besmirchment of another young man who participated in sports, and met an unfortunate, unsolved, and untimely end of violence. Article after article of mysterious killings, etc in all proportions containing thus? The facts are not even known in this particular article's events (note: "ongoing investigation") Ren99 wha?
- Comment Points well taken. Now the question(s) becomes; "Is there need for a preponderance of articles concerning murders per se' each and every time"; 1) one occurs 2) is what we'd call "current" 3) someone, somewhere, has mentioned in sources that someone else, somewhere else heard about 4) has some social relevance or imperative that would merit it's need for an article over, say, similarly generated article for a non-sports figure, such as a brilliant lab student killed in a violent border clash with radical Canadian guerillas, or even regular ol' Kansas kid falls in hole and gets killed in China by unsolved bandits. Now not to base this on "X has this, so Y has this too", but rather the entirety of "do we need it at all anyway in such volume"? Must we languish in sullen news while we ponder here, and once it is solved, will it be of significance sufficient to maintain later, or are we simply creating a ghetto of articles to "get around to fixing again" later? All just curios. Ren99 wha?
- Weak delete. Despite its title, the article is currently presented as a biography of Brandon Brown so its understandable how WP:VICTIM might be invoked. Articles such as this technically fall under the "Criminal acts" section of WP:EVENT which attempts to reconcile WP:GNG with WP:NOT#NEWS. That section states: "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of 'breaking news', are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The "above guidelines" referred to are WP:EFFECT (currently fails), WP:GEOSCOPE (passes), WP:INDEPTH (currently fails), WP:PERSISTENCE (currently fails), and WP:DIVERSE (passes). There is obviously some subjectivity in determining how these are collectively weighed, so if "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", my opinion is that this one falls short. Location (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's look at those:
- Biography of victim That is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind.
- WP:EFFECT argues that the event must have lasting effect. As mentioned above, it is a relatively new event and attempting to portray any lasting effect at this time would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Because of that, the "Effect" argument states: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Therefore, this does not apply.
- WP:INDEPTH is clearly passed with in-depth coverage in Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, USA Today, and ESPN for starters.
- WP:PERSISTENCE is a re-hash of the "effect" argument above. I suppose I could say it could become a case study with the uniqueness of the football-related issues, but there is no way to tell until the trial is complete. But if you want to check out a google search of "college football player murdered" you'll find that it's the #1 subject.
In short, there is nothing weak about the topic at all. It has significant, in-depthy, wide coverage and as new information develops it is continuously published.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- A biographical article titled after an event is still a biographical article. The burden to fix it is on those who think it should be kept. The SI and USA Today articles are lengthy and lend credence to WP:INDEPTH but I would like to see more than two. The Fox Sports and ESPN links are the same brief AP report immediately after the murder. I agree that it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article that you think will eventually pass WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. I'm sure there are plenty of others who will agree with your position on this. Location (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why should anyone be forced to wait to pass WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE when WP:GNG is surpassed already? Further, there is no "burden to fix" in AfD: if it can be "fixed" then the article should be kept so that it can be fixed unless it violates some policy. And as for wanting to see more than two, there are 12 sources on the page from local, regional, and national coverage. Thanks for pointing out that the Associated Press thought it significant enough to write about and that ESPN agreed and picked up the story. At least twice. It made me look, it turns out The Huffington Post also seems to consider the story significant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not WP:GNG is "surpassed" is not a matter of waving your hand and saying "it is so". WP:GNG refers to WP:WWIN which refers to WP:NOT#NEWS. Where there is a question as to whether an event covered in the news is noteworthy, then WP:EVENT, which include WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, becomes the relevant guideline. There is no dispute that this has received news coverage, so the AP and Huff Post reports don't really add anything to the discussion. Location (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now it's in the news too much to be notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not WP:GNG is "surpassed" is not a matter of waving your hand and saying "it is so". WP:GNG refers to WP:WWIN which refers to WP:NOT#NEWS. Where there is a question as to whether an event covered in the news is noteworthy, then WP:EVENT, which include WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, becomes the relevant guideline. There is no dispute that this has received news coverage, so the AP and Huff Post reports don't really add anything to the discussion. Location (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Library for similar discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Emily Sander, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Passing WP:GNG per continued coverage since it happened in 2012. it is not a n "local affair" ha recieved plenty of national attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Note: we gotta avoid: If "A,B,C then X,Y,Z", so discourse concerning other similar/dissimilar articles is moot. I have to again favor the arguments that are additionally presented that this is simply not an article space to retain at this time and hold firm to prior statements. This type of event occurs/has occurred/will occur countless times in human history with no impact on Planet Earth save in passing. Ren99 wha? 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barada (talk • contribs)
- I'll bite How many times in the past have two football players from one college killed a football player from another college after a football game that led to nationwide coverage of the event by Sports Illustrated, USA Today, ESPN, Huffington Post, and Fox Sports? Additionally, you say we have to avoid comparison of this event to other events and then you immediately following compare it to other events. Pick one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Note: we gotta avoid: If "A,B,C then X,Y,Z", so discourse concerning other similar/dissimilar articles is moot. I have to again favor the arguments that are additionally presented that this is simply not an article space to retain at this time and hold firm to prior statements. This type of event occurs/has occurred/will occur countless times in human history with no impact on Planet Earth save in passing. Ren99 wha?
- Delete. Not notable murder of not notable person. - DonCalo (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment while I agree that the notability of the person in question is not enough to include (there is no article on Brandon Brown), what do you say to the significant coverage in the news of the event itself?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find this deletion !vote to be insufficient as saying that it is a non notable murder etc is very easy to write but I think some examples on why it is not notable is needed then. Because from what I can see this case has recieved sufficient press and is notable beyond an average murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is an "argument without an argument" as outlined at WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find this deletion !vote to be insufficient as saying that it is a non notable murder etc is very easy to write but I think some examples on why it is not notable is needed then. Because from what I can see this case has recieved sufficient press and is notable beyond an average murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to the subject's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question how is this article either "news" or "memorial" ? We've already addressed WP:NOTNEWS above (it's not "journalism", "news reports", "who's who", nor "a diary") and as for WP:MEMORIAL this obviously is not a memorial to the victim.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- You've already contended above that in your opinion NOTNEWS doesn't apply. I contend here that it does. Murder cases are big news events; those that have lasting social significance are regarded as subjects of sufficient magnitude to support stand-alone articles. The overwhelming majority, however, are generally regarded as tragic news events. It may be that the peculiar circumstances behind the killing, the football angle, is unusual enough to generate lasting coverage and analysis bigger than the residue of the single news event. In my opinion this does not rise to that level. Incorporating much of this same information into a biography of the victim would cause me less concern than would another addition to the plethora of True Crime Murder of... articles. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'll also note the lead of this article is already set up to be a biography of the victim. Assuming there are a couple sources to be had between athletic department biographies and obituaries, why not flesh this out as a biography? That would, assuming the sources are out there — which they should be, an encyclopedic topic that would pass under GNG. Please do consider that. Note to closing administrator - if this doesn't close as no consensus or keep, please make sure the creator has an opportunity to have his work userfied. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. The AFDs mentioned above seem to favor articles such as Murder of Kelsey Smith and Murder of Emily Sander rather than articles named solely for the victim. Comments, anyone?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- All I can say is that this is definitly not a memorial article, And not news? once again, wikipedia is built on news so I have never generally understood why we have a NOTNEWS guideline. Anyway I think this is a murder that goes beyond your average murder, as seen by the coverage etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. The AFDs mentioned above seem to favor articles such as Murder of Kelsey Smith and Murder of Emily Sander rather than articles named solely for the victim. Comments, anyone?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'll also note the lead of this article is already set up to be a biography of the victim. Assuming there are a couple sources to be had between athletic department biographies and obituaries, why not flesh this out as a biography? That would, assuming the sources are out there — which they should be, an encyclopedic topic that would pass under GNG. Please do consider that. Note to closing administrator - if this doesn't close as no consensus or keep, please make sure the creator has an opportunity to have his work userfied. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- You've already contended above that in your opinion NOTNEWS doesn't apply. I contend here that it does. Murder cases are big news events; those that have lasting social significance are regarded as subjects of sufficient magnitude to support stand-alone articles. The overwhelming majority, however, are generally regarded as tragic news events. It may be that the peculiar circumstances behind the killing, the football angle, is unusual enough to generate lasting coverage and analysis bigger than the residue of the single news event. In my opinion this does not rise to that level. Incorporating much of this same information into a biography of the victim would cause me less concern than would another addition to the plethora of True Crime Murder of... articles. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:VICTIM. this is just another murder, and the "long term" coverage is rather routine. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:VICTIM: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The article is not about the victim but is about the crime, which is the "target article" that WP:VICTIM actually calls for. WP:VICTIM clearly does not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Paul, please read WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like the part that says "It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question." You are quoting the wrong policy. I like WP:ALLARGUMENTS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
if there was ever a classic example of WP:BLUDGEON, this is it. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry to all those effected here, but this is not the place to create a memorial. Meeting WP:GNG is not the end of it, the subject (the murder event) fails the inclusion policy WP:What Wikipedia is not though the event is newsworthy it has no enduring significance and has no place in the encyclopedia. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 05:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete; insignificant person, no long-lasting notability, one event. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I understand Paul McDonald's reasoning, but regardless of whether we judge it as a biography or as an event, it doesn't pass muster. Nothing except breaking-news stories, and Wikipedia isn't the newspaper; the sustained coverage seen here is simply because the case keeps on going. This shouldn't have a separate article unless it gets covered in books or academic journals, or unless stories in the news start referring to it and providing consistent coverage of it as a thoroughly past event, rather than as an integral part of something that's ongoing, such as men facing trial in his death. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, it was a news story. No, there is no indication it is of encyclopedic and lasting interest. Per WP:NOTNEWS. One event, involving a person no previously notable. Edison (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Memorial Please someone explain to me why Murder of Brandon Brown is a "memorial" and should be deleted but Murder of Kelsey Smith and Murder of Emily Sander are not "memorials" and should not be deleted. All I've read is "it's a memorial" and I keep asking, but no one answers "why" it is a memorial. (I also get accused of asking too much, but that's another story)--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Rather than repeating all the very convincing and on point arguments already made here, let me make an analogy. College football players are seldom notable on their own merits, and this one is no exception. If a fan of "Foo U." was murdered by a couple fans from "Faa U.", would we be having this discussion? NO. Those fans have exactly the same notability as the ballplayer involved, none. Murder happens every day. It sucks, but it does. End of story. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Even the coverage cited for the case is at best routine. No indication that this would get past WP:NOTNEWS, and the person's standalone notability is non-existent. Just like so many other "Murder of X" and "Shooting at Y" articles. There are crimes and events that have lasting historical value. This one does not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:53, 20 February 2013 (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.