Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everitt Road saga

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 of the debate was No Consensus (defaults to keep). Looks like a non notable local spat to me, but I'm just the janitor. kingboyk 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everitt Road saga

Non-notable argument that does not warrant a place in an encyclopedia. Delete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:19 UTC (2006-03-12)

• Keep. Though not glamorous, this dispute has generated widespread interest and media coverage in Singapore and even Malaysia. --Sengkang 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Everitt Road saga" is just an arbitrary title applied to a news story. Consider moving it to Wikinews but it doesn't belong here. --CrypticBacon 11:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a notable neighbour dispute, as per Sengkang. The saga was once a major story in the newspapers. --Terence Ong 15:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Can you find some more cites, especially in other countries? Show that this tiff (By the way, I wasn't aware that "displaying jewelry" was an uncivil action, even in Singapore, which is a fine city!) had some influence on something else? Public policy? Changed the lives of truly notable people? Anything? Throw me a bone here man... If not, delete. Also, if kept, it needs a new title. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep!Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination, and comment regarding Lar's questions: it is a petty dispute, "notable" only because the participants took each other to court. Singaporeans are just beginning to learn to be litiguous. :-( — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable event. *drew 03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per drew --Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Uh, I haven't been following this recently, but did they sue the newspapers? If so, then I would consider it an interesting case study of slander and libel in Singapore. Cases that were ridiculously trivial but blew up have been notable, just depending on impact. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on above comment: No, neither party sued the press. A Google search turns up no evidence they did. This CNA report of the trial has a description of the antics leading to the lawsuit, and these antics are why so many Singaporeans remember it. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable Dispute Leidiot 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  Notable in Singapore does not mean notable wortld-wide. It's not notable enough for a place in an encyclopedia. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:51 UTC (2006-03-13)

• Weak keep notable in Singapore means it's notable. ProhibitOnions 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it hasn't been demonstrated to be very notable in Singapore, though. If it's notable enough there to give a few verifiable references, it would be notable enough for me and I'd change my view to keep. (I agree with PO, not NLSE, it doesn't have to be notable worldwide per se)... ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable nationally, made frontpage, [1] The issue may appear less notable on search results because it is cited mainly in the Chinese media, and reports date back to 2003. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That one helps a lot. Changing my thinking to neutral, shading to weak keep. Article needs more (cited) material on why this is so far out of the norms for S'pore, I think... that would enhance notability a lot. People have garden variety spats all the time but this is starting to look like it's beyond that based on the cite you gave (which I added to the article)... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in a buttock-shaking manner. Utterly non-notable. Proto||type 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see much difference between this and the Hatfields and McCoys. The feud has been verified by highly esteemed editors like Terence Ong who know Singapore intimately. We should honor our responsibility to look beyond our biases and cover the world. -- JJay 21:17, 18 March 2006 (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.