Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Mannington Bowes

:{{la|Death of Richard Mannington Bowes}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Death of Richard Mannington Bowes}})

• Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. An unfortunate death, but not notable. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - As a biography it fails WP:BLP1E and as an article on the murder itself it fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Merge anything useful into the main article on the riots. Further, WP:VICTIM states "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

::WP:BLP1E does not apply, as this is about an event, not a biography. Ng.j (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Agreed, but currently the article is so small that it is half bio and half event; it could go either way and I was voicing my opinion for delete regardless. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: WP:BLP1E also does not apply because the subject is no longer a living person. Warden (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: Basically the same thing is also said at WP:VICTIM.See WP:BIO1E; it says the same thing about ALL biographies. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::* WP:VICTIM states "... historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." We have that here as the subject not just one of many mundane victims but has received detailed and special attention. Moreover, it states that "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.". The relevant parent article here would be 2011 England riots which is now 150K in size. WP:SIZE therefore indicates that a sub-article is quite appropriate in this case. Warden (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - While normally I would push for a deletion, there are multiple reasons for notability. The subject is being reported internationally, and Google News has over 1,000 articles on the subject already. I recommend we WP:Give an article a chance, and if it doesn't grow we can merge it into the already long 2011 England riots article. I would also like to point out that that WP:NOTNEWS#NEWS is to keep out routine news items that aren't covered in depth. The fact that the murder took place during a major event lends it notability, as does the reaction following it.

:Some key points to consider:

:*An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.

:*Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.

:*An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.

:*Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.

Ng.j (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

::*I beg to differ:

:::*Notability is not inherited. An event that happens within a notable event is not automatically notable itself, at least not enough for an independent article. It is a feature of the event, as such, the information belongs in the 2011 England riots. Merge shouldn't be pursued, as per WP:UNDUE, the article would have a severe impact in unbalancing the proper coverage of the riots as a historic event.

:::*There is no significant or in-depth coverage of this event. All the coverage is directly linked to the riots, or about all the deaths linked to the riots - not in-depth coverage in the sense the policy suggests. There is simply no notability here as generally understood in wikipedia.

:::*This event will probably not have significant coverage independent of the riots. It currently doesn't have any significant coverage in RS that justify an independent notability. The current mentions in the media will probably not go beyond this news cycle. If it does in the future, maybe we can WP:SUMMARY from 2011 England riots - we can delete without prejudice to future establishment of notability.

:::*International coverage - understood as independent coverage by international media (ie not British) is insignificant or negligible, in particular when compared with coverage of the riots.

:::Unlike the wider event of the 2011 England riots, none of the deaths within it, even those in heavy news rotation, are notable events in themselves. They might or might not become notable as time passes, but they all have the characteristics of common, non-notable murders, of which hundreds if not thousands happen world-wide on a daily basis. The fact that they happened during a notable event, does makes it sufficient to mention in that event's article, but doesn't establish enough notability for an independent article. No one says this content must be ignored or trivialized, we only argue to keep in mind the different goals that an encyclopedia and the news media have. That said, over at WikiNews they might want an article on this topic, rather than just the riots themselves.--Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable sub-subject of a larger theme. Notable already by itself. An upmerge is pointless due to the size of the parent article and the narrow focus of this item. That narrow focus is important though - as the media similarly focuses on this event. It seems to me though that there is a general desire to delete anything that the public might be interested it - which will in the end leave us with pokemon-pedia. Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Can you explain notability as per WP:NEVENTS and WP:BIO1E? I see no reason for this warranting its own article unless evidence to the contrary is provided.--Cerejota (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• It is impossible to explain notability as per WP:NEVENTS and WP:BIO1E. Anybody who tries has never read those links. WP:BIO1E discusses if an article should be written about the person (aka bio) or about the event. It specifically discusses the event article to be named after the person if the person played a major role. It does not stipulate an active role. WP:NEVENTS on the other hand focuses on sources. Buzzwords are depth and diversity of sources. While foreign articles will not be used in the article when sufficiant English sources are available it is worth checking for those. This event has garnered international media attention. Also a subsection says: "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary". Agathoclea (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - per ENCYCLOPEDIC FACT (Gabinho^>:) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
• Delete - Agree with nom. I think a single line in 2011 England riots would be due mention of this event. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - worth a mention in 2011 England riots per WP:ONEEVENT, but not its own article, per WP:CRIME, WP:N/CA.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Unsure/Comment. This is notable, but probably not notable enough for it's own article, but possible more notable than just an one sentence mention on the 2011 England riots page, perhaps a page called Deaths in the 2011 England riots should be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with the existing 2011 England Riots article, it's part of a larger event and not notable in of itself. Zerbey (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. "He was the fifth fatality of the 2011 England riots." Are we going to have an individual article on every fatality? No, that would be pointless. NOTNEWS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, we should have this content somewhere. I'm unsure though whether it is better as a standalone article or as part of a larger one (either the main riots article or a broader sub-article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is kept, I think Death of Richard Mannington Bowes would be a better, more neutral title. Nobody has been convicted of murder and it is more likely than not that anyone charged with murder will plead not guilty. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:I agree on the title change and will be WP:BOLD and do it.--Cerejota (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to 2011 England riots. If the riots article is considered to be too large (at the moment, I don't think it is), we should consider splitting off either the section on effects or the sub-section on deaths. (Should there be a lot of coverage of his death at, say, the trial of his killers, there could be a case for restoring the article as and when that coverage appears.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• A fairly obvious merge to 2011 England riots. Richard Mannington Bowes was an entirely private person who got tragically caught up in the riots. His notability derives solely through that event. While the article is long and detailed, I don't see that his section will be lost amid the detail, if properly written. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Wait and see. Time will tell whether this death is significant or not in the grand scheme of things. Deb (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to the riots article. This terrible incident can't really stand alone as an article and the poor guy was not otherwise notable, but the information should definitely be kept. If the riots article is too long, it can be properly split as explained above by others. If this incident later becomes more notable, it can become an article again. At the moment, it's not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunate footnote to a notable event, this fails WP:BIO1E utterly. --Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also fails WP:NEVENTS. We are not news.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is not a biography article, it is an article about an EVENT. Ng.j (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• WP:BIO1E with regards of WP:NEVENTS, the two support each other in terms of establishing notability. BIO1E is not only about articles, but also about the information articles contain to wit: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. (BIO1E). However, it is correct that the main criteria to be used is WP:NEVENTS, which it fail utterly. There is absolutely no coverage of this death that is independent of the riots or of the other deaths in the riots, and the subject is not notable previously, so his death has no presumption of being notable for that reason. --Cerejota (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – in case the article is kept, it should be noted that it has not been established that the death was murder. In the UK, to be considered murder, the killer must have had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. At the moment there is only a suspect who may or may not be responsible for the death, and if he is responsible, may or may not have had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The article, and the article title, should not prejudge the issue.  --Lambiam 18:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• merge to 2011 England riots
• Merge with the 2011 England Riots article. (A. Carty (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
• Keep and change title back to Murder of Richard Mannington Bowes. BIO1E only applies to biographies. This is an article about his killing. It is a high-profile case, covered by many national and international media sources. It is similar to the murder of Garry Newlove, except that RMB was killed during a riot. We don't need someone to have been convicted of murder to use the title Murder of x. No-one has been convicted of the murder of Joanna Yeates. The suspect in that case denies murder, admits manslaughter and is on remand awaiting trial. Jim Michael (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

::WP:BIO1E doesn't just applies to biographical articles, it applies to biographical information in general (Such as circumstances of death), including that in an article about an event. This event, however, clearly fails WP:NEVENTS, being an unfortunate and tragic footnote in a larger event that is indeed notable. As to your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison (something you should avoid in a deletion discussion), what you describe as a trivial difference is in fact a core difference - the fact that this death happened in direct correlation as the riots robs it of independent notability as an event. Sounds unfair, but that is how notability works as per WP:NEVENTS, and how being known for a single event works under WP:BIO1E. This death is not independently notable from the riots, in which a significant number of deaths have happened, all tragic, none independently notable WP:NEVENTS or of people notable before the riot WP:BIO1E. There is nothing notable about this death except that it happened in the context of a notable event. Notability is not inherited. WP:UNDUE suggests that a mention of the death be done in the main article, with consideration in terms of weight be given, and not going into non-notable detail. We are not a police blotter in which every crime, no matter how atrocious, must have a separate article. From an encyclopedic - rather than news - stand point, all crimes commited under the riots are a single historical event, and hence not independently notable. This is in contrast to Death of Mark Duggan, which is independently notable as the direct cause of the Tottenham riot, which was the riot that set these events in motion, and hence his death is a key fact of understanding the riots as a historical and encyclopedic, instead of as an immediate and newsworthy, notable event. --Cerejota (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merge with 2011 England riots for goodness sake. Unless this becomes a high profile murder investigation then there doesn't seem any point in having an article about it? Haven't checked, but dDo we also have one for those unfortunate guys who got run over in Birmingham? If so, merge that as well. It can easily be accommodated in the article about the riots I would think. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with 2011 England riots. Sad though it is, the death isn't especially remarkable, and RMB wasn't otherwise noteworthy.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Terribly sad; but not sufficiently notable to be worthy of being spilt from the 'riots article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - and rename to Murder of... Someone stated above that their reason for delete was that Wikipedia is not not news, but lets take a good check Wikipedia is built on news and is in fact news... to say that wikipedia is not news is a contradiction..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: If Death of Mark Duggan remains even though his death had nothing to do with orgy of looting and arson that followed, then this article certainly should remain as well. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• That the Death of Mark Duggan "had nothing to do with orgy of looting and arson that followed" is exactly why it is a separate article, it is notable independently of the rioting/looting. The death of Mr Bowes is inextricably linked to the events - it was a direct result of them. The question is whether to include the information about him and his death as part of the main article about the riots or as a subarticle, either focused exclusively on him or combined with other deaths resulting from the riots. The status of the Mark Duggan article is therefore irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with 2011 England riots. Non notable and, whilst sad, doesn't warrant a specific article. Quentin X (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into the riots page. Do we have articles for each of the unfortunate victims of the riots? Do we have articles for the deaths of all people killed in episodes of anti-social behaviour? The death is tragic and sad, but it isn't noteworthy. Arnie Side (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge per the above arguments for merging. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Blair Peach was killed during a demonstration. The murder of Keith Blakelock happened as part of a riot. What is different about Bowes' killing, to mean it does not deserve an article? Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Response The circumstances of the deaths of Blair Peach and Keith Blakelock became "causes célèbres" for many, and defining moments in British history. Although Bowes' has resulted in wide publicity, in my opinion it has not become such a defining moment. (It could change, of course, in which case an article would then be appropriate.)--A bit iffy (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Best to see how it transpires in the media and such before we reach a decision. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This is a high-profile murder case with much notability and political impact. Our editing policy is to keep such well-sourced material. Warden (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with 2011 England Riots. Tragic, most certainly, but non-notable. Spacini (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep' - as highly related to the 2011 England riots, but completely separate - as an event - from them, this article more that satisfies WP:GNG, and there is no reason for it to not exist. People need to kneejerk a little less, and read sources a little more. Nevard (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• : WP:AGF please. The point is that although the story is clearly covered in sources at a national level, one of the other requirements of WP:EVENT is the duration of coverage. As the poor guy only died a couple of days ago, there simply isn't enough time to demonstrate longevity of coverage yet, so reading every single word of every single citation to prove that would be a waste of time. (Okay, there are some stories like Baby P which can be presumed notable immediately when there's little doubt the story will run and run, but this isn't one of them.) Don't assume everyone who !votes delete/merge is kneejerking - they have valid opinions too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• ::Wrong. the event is covered as an individual item in international news not just locally in tiny Britain. As far as the kneejerking is concerned Wikipedia:NEVENTS#Breaking_news asks editors to wait until the dust settles before nominating for deletion. Agathoclea (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• ::: That's not the point. As I clearly stated, the issue isn't geographical scope of the coverage, it's duration. Yes, it makes sense to hold off a few days to nominate for deletion if there's a significant chance that the story will clearly meet WP:EVENT within a few days, but with the news about the riots now being dominated by other issues, it's a reasonable opinion that this isn't one of them. In any case, the guidelines also suggests considering alternatives such as merge, which is precisely what many people are doing. Don't confuse knee-jerk reactions with differing opinions; trying to force outcomes based of over-prescriptive interpretations of policy is not helpful. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• :::: The point of that guideline is to wait until it is clear whether there will be significant continuing coverage or not. Just as in some cases it's clear from the off that there will be extended coverage (e.g. Death of Mark Duggan) it is clear in others that there will not be (e.g. the death of Ben Woollacott, the 19-year old crew member who died after falling overboard from the Woolwich Ferry). However this case is neither of them - it is not clear at this point whether it will be like Mark Duggan or Ben Woollacott - so nominations for deletion should wait until it is clear. A discussion about merging would have been far more appropriate at this time. It might be that editors should have waited a few more days before starting the article, but once created you should leave it around 5-7 days at least before nominating for deletion (my personal standard) when coverage could go either way. WP:CRYSTAL applies equally to predictions of notability and predictions of non-notability. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion Hold back from closing debate until, say, 1 September by which time it might be clearer whether the event is notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, or at the very least wait and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being at least, or possibly merge. Judging by the press coverage at the moment this event is notable enough for a mention. The riots article is rather large, and a little more background on specific events such as this one would make it even more so, and not sit well within the article. At some point all the articles these about events will settle down, maybe then would be a good time to consolidate. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Don't delete now renominate in 3 months if by then it hasn't been merged or the lasting significance of the event demonstrated.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Watchful waiting is the best approach here. It can always be deleted later. Perhaps after the thousands of other Wikipedia articles have been deleted that have no merit whatsoever but have slipped under the radar of the wikicops because unlike this article they are so insignificant they haven't raised any flags. Oh but hang on a moment. Doesn't the fact that so many are posting here arguing for or against keeping this article in itself provide evidence that perhaps the article is more significant than the wikicops are willing to concede it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.25.55 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with 2011 England Riots. A tragic event without doubt but non-notable in terms of a stand alone article.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with 2011 England Riots. There is very little reason for the death to be given its own page at the moment, all this information is better off as a part of the main England Riots article. Angry Lampshade (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Topic has received extensive coverage in the sources, seems noteable enough for its own article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Textbook ONEEVENT. Discount the usual suspects (as always) and the only argument here is "this could potentially have far-reaching consequences in UK law", but it is in no way unique in that regard compared to any of the other deaths related to the event, and is argument by prophecy anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:* Textbook WP:ONEEVENT indeed: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified ... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." We have hundreds of mainstream sources for this and the murder trial moves to the Old Bailey tomorrow so coverage is still ramping up. Meanwhile, the 2011 England riots is still growing and spawning other sub-articles such as Timeline of 2011 England riots and Causes of the 2011 England riots. It's still up around 100K, which, per WP:SIZE, is too big to be merging more detail in. There's not the slightest case for deletion here and so only a usual suspect like yourself would suggest otherwise. Warden (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

::* If you want to discuss zealotry with me, Warden, you've almost certainly "participated" in more AfDs since the start of the calendar year than I've ever looked at. As for your selective quoting of ONEEVENT, I'll leave it to that part of the community whose "opinions" at AfD aren't skipped over as a matter of course to compare this subject with the examples given in that guideline (a clue: when you're looking at the LA riots, this subject is not the Rodney King of the story). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:::* Your participation in AFDs does indeed seem to be quite selective and, in this case, seems to be a tit-for-tat against FeydHuxtable - tsk. The quoting of WP:ONEEVENT is very relevant. This guideline does not tell us to delete content indiscriminately but to have regard to attention given by reliable sources to the individual's role. The individual in this case has been given extensive and continuing coverage internationally and in all the quality press. The guidance is therefore that coverage is justified. Warden (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

:::WP:SIZE is of no issue if we realize this not a notable incident, not more notable that the other four deaths in this event, and hence requires no more than a mention of the death, and perhaps the media coverage. WP:SENSATION tells us to not confuse coverage with notability even is coverage is one of the factors of notability - but not the only one. There is not a single source that I have read that establishes encyclopedic as opposed to journalistic notability in this case.--Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

::::* WP:SENSATION is referring to "tabloid or yellow journalism". This topic has however been covered by the quality press - reputable media and journals such as the BBC, The Times and The Guardian which continue to report the matter today, over a week after the original incident. Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant - please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains that "Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

:::::*Selective policy reading is selective: A little further down, WP:SENSATION says: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." So, your point is not really supported by the text: otherwise reliable source can and will engage in sensationalism and yellow journalism, and this should weigh in our considerations, not be dismissed. No one in their right mind would question the newsworthy" nature of this topic, nor of the need to include information in 2011 England riots (as it already does). What we do question is that this coverage is an indicator of independent notability that leads to encyclopedic coverage, or if it is a result of WP:SENSATION. Notability is not the sole or even most important criteria for inclusion, it is also encyclopedic worthiness''. This topic is not worthy of its own encyclopedia article, althought this topic should be covered in the main article on the riots, with WP:UNDUE considerations, and with consideration to the fact that we are not a memorial for those who die, get murdered, or etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerejota (talk • contribs)

::::::* This is a serious matter - a murder which will now be tried in the UK's highest criminal court - [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14571273 Sept. 9th] is the next court date. To suggest that this is infotainment or a silly season story is both offensive and inaccurate. Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant - this is not a reality show either and you don't get a vote to decide who leaves the island. What matters is the independent verdict of professional editors and publishers - the ones who produce those reliable sources. Note that, besides covering this murder at length, that they have also been commenting on the death of the silly season - see [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/columnists/2011/08/14/david-james-global-anxiety-kills-the-silly-season-91466-29231450/ Global anxiety kills the silly season] or [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/Cohen-age-of-outrage.html New York Times], for example. The verdict of such independent commentators is that we have an atypical August this year and that this is not a silly season story. Warden (talk) 16:26, 19 August 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.