Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey Smith

Kelsey Smith

Delete: Biography of a person who prior to her disappearance is otherwise completely unremarkable. Many people go missing every day. That she is missing does not make her notable. Should we scan police reports and write articles about every person that goes missing now? --Durin 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or transwiki. This isn't a biography: it's news copy. Charlie 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to get an encyclopedic tone. I think you are trying to use the slippery slope fallacy. Wikipedia guidelines say that you get an article if the information comes from "multiple non trivial sources". We don't have to listed to the scanner, just monitor the standard media sources and when they report on it in more than one reliable venue, its notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the point is being missed. This person has done nothing that makes her notable. Nothing. --Durin 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a person isn't notable simply because the majority of their life wasn't is completely off-base. Should we get rid of the article on Todd Beamer? VanillaX 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral...at least for the moment.Delete She in her own right she IS not-notable, however there is a good deal of media coverage regarding her disappearance. The coverage she is starting to get is slowly building up to that for Natalie Holloway, and I'd say coverage on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, ABC etc does count as a number of reliable sources. My issue is that are we going to create an article for every widely covered missing persons case from here on in? I know it's the slippery slope fallacy, however it does merit mentioning. (I won't even get into my personal beliefs on the actual news coverage of a situation like this, which I could write an essay on) --Wildthing61476 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I've done some thinking on this, and this is a NN victim whom the media is overexposing. Wildthing61476 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a clean-up. Also a mention to that oversaturating news media coverage of it (as in the article Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome). LILVOKA 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be damned, there goes my essay. Wildthing61476 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, WP:NOT a newspaper. Kusma (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fervently hope she is found ok, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper or True Crime Gazette. Per WP:NOT: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". A recent abduction story is better suited to Wikinews than to an encyclopedia. Fox News, CNN and newspaper editors use lurid stories about missing white girls while ignoring other disappearances to boost readership/viewership, while encyclopedias try to assemble NPOV stories about facts of enduring historical importance. Edison 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unfortunately not notable. Arzel 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Becoming incredibly notable, yes she is pretty, but we cant hold that against her. They have recently found a body. this maybe become another Ramsee. and I would like to adobt this article and improve it if anyone has any objections Ksharpe126 3:49PM, 6 June 2007 Eastern Time.
Keep: If you were to delete this article, that would be somewhat like deleting Adam Walsh, who was abducted. Thanks! JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam Walsh is notable for multiple reasons. --Durin 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, because he was abducted. JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being abducted was not in itself what made him notable. Otherwise, we might as well add every single abduction that happens every single day around the world. --Durin 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And now she is dead. What point does this article serve? Shall we start including victims of every murder every where? --Durin 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was no notable before abduction, and her abduction and death is not notable. 24.63.204.55 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's more signifigant than "every other murder" 71.172.28.176 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Durin 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this not like every other abduction? The only thing the police have, coming from the media, is a surveillance camera picture. No name, no motive, nothing else. Most abductions within 48hrs have a suspect named. This is coming up to be 5 days old with no known suspect name. This is also being featured on America's Most Wanted on Saturday evening. Make it an even more high profile case. AcePuppy 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even though she was found dead, the killer is still out there, has not been named, nor is there any known motive for the abduction. AcePuppy 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - The situation has received significant media coverage, it's something people have definitely heard about. The article is a definite keep. VanillaX 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the media chooses this one person to create a sensationalized story out of does not mean that she is/was worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I would only see this as necessary if 1) someone involved in the crime was already notable enough to have an article about him/her, or 2) this was a completely original or unique event (which it isn't). User:Thereisn0try 15:28, 6 June 2007
Keep, The abduction has received significant media coverage which, by default, makes her remarkable. ThomasC22 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reiterating what user Edison said: WP:NOT: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". Better suited for Wikinews. Flummery 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per ThomasC22, et al. The fact that this has been covered by the media to this extent will unquestionably create an informational interest in the subject which, by definition, should be at least partially satisfied by an encyclopedia article. --WarEagleTH 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete On balance, and as compared to other articles, I think the prominence in the media was relatively limited. DGG 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is the internet running out of space?
Delete per nom. Oh, and that's an IP edit above me. G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that this person was unremarkable up until this point in time, the shear amount of news coverage and media attention should justify an article for her. As someone pointed out earlier Adam Walsh and indeed his father were completely unremarkable until their event. Walsh's father himself was not even involved in television. Perhaps at some point in the future this issue may become "just another abduction/murder" for the statistics books, but at this point in time the interest of at least a nominal amount of people here in the U.S has made this situation and indeed the person of remarkable status. --Tigerman81 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry guys, it's gotten too much media attention and is too notable to leave aloneStayinAnon 05:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]