Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Swire e-mail

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claire Swire e-mail

Seems unencyclopedic to me. Interesting, yes, encyclopedic, no. kingboyk 10:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable Internet meme. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete naughty email that got leaked. Neither of the participants are notable or famous, and there were no particularly interesting or significant consequences (according to the links, they didn't even get sacked). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tonywalton. I consider it notable, considering how many times I've heard about it and how many other similar articles are on Wikipedia. Pursey 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Pursey - it was a widely reported event in international media.
• Weak keep possibly should be merged with similar instances into a better overall article on the internet and work place, however not so bad that it should just be deleted. Addhoc 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment merge and redir to Internet meme, perhaps? Tonywalton  | Talk 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - an Internet meme per above. Matthuxtable 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, to quote the first article linked "There is perhaps no better-known example of workplace Internet abuse than the Claire Swire email case." Top in its field, recieved plenty of press coverage, perfect topic for wikipedia. We're not paper here, we can write about silly things. (not to say we don't have standards, but this meets them) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pursey. Possibly support the merge with Internet meme, but perhaps this is a bit more notable than the others? -postglock 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree wholeheartedly with Night Gyr, but it would be better linked, or part of, and article on "workplace internet issues" or similar. Doesn't seem to be a suitable article however.
• Strong Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an attempt at an authoritative encyclopedia (paper or not-paper, this is the primary fundamental point of wikipedia) - it is not a news report database and it is not Snopes.com. 1) This is NOT an significant internet meme unless you're using such a ridiculously broad notion of significant internet meme that covers every single chain letter, glurge story, cute kitty/puppy picture, and yes, silly workplace email messages that people forward 2) The first article link uses the phrase "There is perhaps no better known" as a way of beginning an article - this is a prose structure flourish, not reliable research. And knowledge about this incident appears to be highly UK-centric, to boot 3) Press coverage does not equal encyclopedic notability. Much content in news media, even well-known respected sources with international scope, are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Bwithh 17:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge With Internet meme. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and widely reported so should be easily improved per WP:CITE. On the first page of Google results I found the Guardian and the BBC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The BBC and The Guardian are news organisations. We strive to be an enyclopedia. Will anybody care about this in 5 years time? I doubt it. --kingboyk 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • 5 years have already passed since the incident in question. Catchpole 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Widely reported in its day, but has it had any significance or impact in the long term beyond that of the average multi-forwarded jokes/curiosity/spam/whatever? I think not. And if the authorship is in doubt, it is really "an example of the problems that staff can cause their employers..."? Or just malice, or an office prank that inadvertantly went too far? On top of which, there have been similar incidents, and I'm not so sure that this one would be the first to come to anyone's mind. Coverage at its time doesn't necessarily translate to lasting infamy. Shimeru 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is verifiable and notable enough to be reported on by quite a few sources. The article could be improved a bit but is appropriate for WP. Seraphimblade 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pursey Catchpole 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Internet folklore. ReverendG 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kingboyk. Akanksha 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't often disagree with Kbk, but the media coverage and worldwide reach of this one make it just about wikiworthy. The article does fail to mention the content of the mail (her thanking him for giving her a hot load that was both tasty and good for hair conditioning, in case anybody is wondering) or link to its text, both of which should happen. Deizio talk 08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh, it's not a personal issue, and there seems to be a compliment lurking in there so that's cool :) --kingboyk 09:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge This story and a couple of similar ones at Snopes http://www.snopes.com/risque/tattled/luxton.htm should be merged into a cautionary note on how rapidly an email, photo or video can spread. This article has some policy sites connected to it which give sensible cautions, so the thing is 'encyclopedic,' but it makes more sense to put these naughty email anecdotes in one place.Edison 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems very worthy of inclusion based on the attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Seraphimblade above. Smeelgova 04:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep Had alot of news coverage as an infamous case in email history. --Marriedtofilm 21:56, 18 October 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.