Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Tia Sharp

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 146.90.141.14 (talk) at 13:10, 13 August 2012 (→‎Disappearance of Tia Sharp: re Andy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disappearance of Tia Sharp

Disappearance of Tia Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

another disappearance of a child story. Clearly WP:NOTNEWS LibStar (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Even though WP:NOTNEWS is one of the most fake guidelines on Wikipedia as Wikipedia in fact is news I have to agree that this girls disappearance has not becomed notable. Perhaps in a few months time. Lets see.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However if someone can convince me otherwise im open to change my stance. As in these cases new developments can happen fast.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why WP:NOTNEWS was deprecated into a soft redirect. We have news, sure enough, but we're not a newspaper, so incidents like this probably don't make the cut. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - too many people have edited the article for it to be a G7. I apologise for my summary. I am an ass. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thing I checked here before making an ass of myself on your talk page. I should explain, though, that at the time I placed the G7 tag on the article I believed that none of those other editors had made substantive changes, which meant it still qualified for G7. However, after taking another look at it, this edit that I had written off as vandalism was probably good-faith (but misguided and likely a BLP violation) and therefore disqualifies the article from G7. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edited my post but kept my delete opinion in place as the keep arguements here have not solved the issues at hand - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually the story does not lack WP:PERSISTENCE as it has been covered by multiple media every single day since it happened. Also persistence of a article/story can not be evaluated after a week. But still.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's a bit WP:CRYSTAL on my part. I'll just say very few such cases achieve persistence. This is WP:TOOSOON at best. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep generally when there is this much fuss in the media, and this much coverage, something more than just a 'missing child' has happened. Veryscarymary (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more sources by the hour, meeting notability requirements by now. Egg Centric 20:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I actually have to agree that the case is in fact recieving a huge amount of media attention and as Egg Centric points out the sources keeps coming. Notability requirements are met. WP:GNG are met and definitly also WP:PERSISTENCE per persistent media coverage of multiple media. I have been convinced.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Tia Sharp disappearance, gave 539 000 hits on Google about the same amount as Joanna Yeates another highly notable disappearance and unfortunate (in that case) murder, at the beginning of the search etc.. And I know certain users will point out that Google is not reliable when it comes to searching on a persons name but it is still a great indicator of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Do four stories over 24 hours indicate persistence? Has anyone found additional sources from the past 48 hours? Can we discuss this for a few more days? Bearian (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that we are talking about the overall persistency of media coverage. But an update is definitly needed with the multiple new developments and sources that are available I agree. Have you yourself tried to find any sources for the past 48hours or are you just awaiting deletion? Because they are all over the place. And yes we can discuss it for a few days, as this Afd will be up for atleast a week.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy incubate  There is no deadline at Wikipedia, and wp:notability here is not stable.  This could use a bold admin to move this article out of mainspace to the incubator for one or two weeks and give a specific date when it will be returned to mainspace WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will make it be recreated constantly and also confuse a lot of would be editors. It's completely anti a collaborative editing environemnt. Egg Centric 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with user Egg Centric incubating this article is unproductive. Yes indeed this article needs a bold admin who gets this article kept for now so the article is available for all users to edit. This is the Joanna yeates AfD deletion discussin in a flashback it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't pretend to understand the previous two comments, we don't need bold admins keeping articles, and an article temporarily incubated for one or two weeks is not "re-created constantly".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need admins, bold or otherwise, doing anything. We need Wikipedia editors to engage in discussion and arrive at a consensus. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below in your 23:52 10 August statement you argue that sources are still being written.  What kind of discussion and consensus do you want to have about articles that don't exist?  Do you agree that we don't know the future?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course sources are still being written. That is true of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles. I want to have a discussion about this article, which does exist. Yes, I agree that we don't know the future. My argument is that this article meets all of the criteria that an article needs to meet in order to be included in Wikipedia. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet your !vote below uses the future tense "will" five times.  What is to be gained in keeping this debate open and the article in mainspace while editors discuss that which we agree cannot be known, when we can temporarily move this article to the incubator while events continue to unfold?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using the future tense to argue that coverage will outlive "a single relatively short" news cycle because we are still arguably within that cycle. I can't write that the article has outlived the cycle if we are still in the cycle. By your argument, no article should exist until that first news cycle is over. That is not the current policy, and if you want to make it policy, the place to put the case would be on the policy page. The reason that the article should be left in mainspace while editors discuss it is that that is the policy. We have the deletion discussion, and when the discussion is over the article is kept or deleted, depending upon the result of the discussion. By your argument, every article listed on AfD should be incubated until the discussion is complete. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per our policy at WP:NOT, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories."  Your first edit as an IP on 2012-08-06 shows you commenting about a dead link, why are you editing while logged out?  What accounts do you have on the English Wikipedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've misunderstood the policy. A newspaper report is not a first-hand report. That was not my first edit as an IP. It was my first edit as this IP. Whether I'm editing logged in, logged out, or swinging from the chandelier is none of you business. How about we continue the discussion of this article and wp:AGF? 146.90.141.14 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson and the following DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course there are lots of sources, and they are accumulating by the hour - it's a live news story. What else would you expect? And how does that make it a topic that needs to have an entry in an encyclopedia exactly? There are far too many pages of this sort about one-off incidents of no enduring or substantive notability, however tragic they might be. Let's not have another. This isn't, indeed, a newspaper. N-HH talk/edits 13:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, for those citing WP:PERSISTENCE, here's what that part of the notability guidelines actually says - "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." N-HH talk/edits 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your reason for deletion is that there are too mamy articles of this kind? A faulty reason at best and very speculative. One could argue about the newspaper reasoning for days but in the end Wikipedia is built on news why else do we use sources from other "news" sources for million and million of articles?. I dont buy your reasons for deletion a bit. Sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is like I would argue that we shouldnt do articles on sports people because we have too many of them. No matter how notable they are. It is just a non-reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand my reasoning, it's probably best not to comment on it rather than try to fill up yet more space on this page underneath everyone else's comments by misrepresenting it, even if unintentionally. My reason for arguing for deletion was not that "there are too many articles of this kind" - it is because I think pages like this have no place in an encyclopedia that I think there are too many of them. You have it back to front. And the reason I thik that, in turn, is explained in the very quote I supplied but which you have happily ignored. And no, Wikipedia is not "built on news". Using news sources - along with others - to derive content for articles about notable topics is one thing, deciding a topic is notable simply because it has been in the news is another. N-HH talk/edits 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, following fresh developments in this case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I just have a feeling that certain aspects of this case will keep it in the public eye for some time. If that turns out not to be the case then it can be deleted later. Melishe (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPECULATION. Also, feelings have no place on this page. Please take them to http://www.feelings.com/. Only automatons with hearts of stone may operate in this jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. Perhaps rather than nitpicking at the words I chose, you could focus on my opinion itself. I think that while we are unclear as to the lasting notability of this topic, it should be kept, added to, and then reviewed again. I think this is the most straightforward and logical option. Melishe (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the case is undoubtedly tragic, it's impossible to assert encyclopedic significance at this stage. It's not so unusual or iconic (yet) that it is likely to have a lasting impact on the public mind - it's not in the same category as (e.g.) the Murder of Jamie Bulger. N-HH's comments above are broadly correct. Prioryman (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you own a crystal ball? Because all you write is about the future and pure speculations.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't need to be unusual, iconic, or to have a lasting impact on the public mind. It needs to meet Notability, and it does. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "crystal ball" argument works of course against keeping, not against deleting, since if we don't yet know - as we obviously don't - we haven't yet established that it will have a lasting impact. Someone saying that it is unclear wherther it will have a lasting impact is stating the obvious and rather clearly, one would have thought, not speculating in the same way as someone who claims it will, and that hence we need the article to stay. Equally, simply asserting that "it does" meet notability requirements already doesn't do much to illuminate the issue. N-HH talk/edits 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as an article "created on flimsy, transient merits" per WP:RECENTISM. There is very little information in the article to suggest this is notable or historic in any way and it does not seem to be a very obvious or prominent case like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (I have not heard anything about this at all, even on the news, before finding this discussion). Wikipedia cannot have pages for every single missing 12-year-old London schoolgirl.
  • Also the article has been moved to Murder of Tia Sharp and filed under Category:Murdered English children, despite the lack of actual evidence that the child, if she exists at all, is even dead, never mind murdered, only that "a body" has been discovered. The tag "UK-crime-stub" is also prominent despite no indication of any crime being committed (nobody seems to have considered that the child could have run away or been killed by falling down a hole or out of a tree or window). Serious BLP concerns are indicated here. Somebody should sort it out. ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like purely speculations by an IP. To compare the Madeleine McCann case to this one is like comparing appels and oranges. If you havent heard of this case at all you can not be considered one to likely know if this case is notable or not. because I and everyone I know have heard of it and it is the main news on all British media and has also been reported in other countries. You have only unfortunatly made it even more clear that this article is notable. I rest my case.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a reasoned interpretation based on available data. Bombardment by 24-hour news media and your close connections to/emotional involvement with the topic does not constitute notability. It is a terrible thing that a child has disappeared but this also does not constitute notability. Your status as a "named user" with an account does not constitute a capacity to determine notability either, or to dismiss valid criticisms by "anonymous users". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.196 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Coverage of the case will almost certainly meet the persistence criteria because it will last beyond a relatively short news cycle. If the man in custody is charged, there will be coverage of subsequent legal proceedings. If he is not charged, there will be coverage of the continued search. Questions are being asked about the efficacy of the police operation; those questions will result in yet more coverage. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All very sad, but there's nothing about this case that is especially significant. There has been a lot of media attention, but there's no indication it will last beyond a relatively short news cycle.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A girl is missing, possibly dead. A man is arrested on suspicion of murder. The missing girl and the arrested man spent a night alone in a house. The police have found a body in that house. The body had not been discovered during 3 previous police searches of the house. And you don't think there is any indication that coverage will continue beyond a relatively short news cycle? 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to agree with A bit iffy. What 146 has stated may or may not be true but this is no indication that coverage will continue beyond a relatively short news cycle. Little girls go missing and die all the time all over the world. Men are arrested all the time all over the world. Police search for bodies all the time all over the world. This is one of the things police do. It is a sad fact of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Several national UK newspapers, as well as some Irish sources have covered it. Autarch (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think discussions of this sort are inherently subjective: developing events like this often won't satisfy WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT, but there's little point in deleting them if it's clear they soon will. In this case I think 146.90.141.14's logic is sound: it's hard to see the story dying down anytime soon, so coverage will go beyond a short news cycle (as required by WP:PERSISTENCE). I could be wrong though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many news articles have been created about this case, and I think it's important enough to be kept in enwiki. --Olli (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have any encyclopedias covered it? WP is an encyclopedia, not wikinews. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in encyclopedias has never been part of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews exists for a reason. This is it. If, in five years time, this has proven to be as prominent a case as, for example, Murder of James Bulger, Soham murders, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, etc. there is nothing to stop someone creating it on Wikipedia. Going "missing for 8 days" is too little time to determine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This case has significant traction and is very likely to become a significant murder case. I think it should remain. ICabrit (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"very likely to become" That's just the problem - NOTNEWS and CRYSTAL both apply. Bring it back if and when it does, and when there's more to write about than a speculative news story. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, yes it is a problem currently and yes, in my view the page should not of been created until there already was enough significance to create the article. Perhaps the page could be deleted and then re-added at that time, although I feel should be kept for now. ICabrit (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I "feel" it shouldn't be kept. And others do too but they are able to say why. By that logic, our feelings cancel each other out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to resolve your issues with the word "feel" before you look at this page again - it's been used several times, and I don't want you to get yourself upset. ;) Melishe (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are now issues as to how the investigation was handled (see here), which suggests a fairly strong reason why we should keep this. There is going to be more coverage, not least a potential police inquiry into their conduct. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just begging the question. What makes a possibly mishandled disappearance/murder investigation encyclopedia-worthy? Yes, it's newsworthy - as evidenced by the sources we have - and yes there's likely to be more news coverage as the investigation continues and any trial or inquiry takes place, just as there is for many other murders, accidents and violent assaults. Fine, if it all leads to a formal and major overhaul of national police procedures of lasting significance, or if we find out the Duke of Edinburgh was involved, we have a worthy encyclopedia entry of historical note. If not - and until then - it's not clear we do. N-HH talk/edits 10:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our arguments need to be based on policy. Whether or not you or I feel it is "encyclopaedia-worthy" is irrelevant. It is notable, and that's all that counts. It doesn't need to be of historical importance, or to result in a major overhaul of policing in the UK. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do all murder cases lead to an investigation of police procedure? I don't think so. Do all our murder case articles cover issues that have lead to a change in the law? Probably not, but the vast majority have longevity in one sense or another. The truth is there are now aspects of this case which make it more than a mere run-of-the-mill murder inquiry, and we have a lot of media coverage. I think it may have been a little early to start this article, but as the days progress it's beginning to satisfy our guideline. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "it's beginning to satisfy our guideline" indicates it doesn't. Maybe it will in future, but that's not an argument for retention.—A bit iffy (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but it could also indicate that it's just over the threshold, which is what I giess I actually meant. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@IP: my argument is based on policy, as per my previous comment, which actually quoted specific provisions. I didn't specifically cite a policy this time round, no. The fact that you linked to the guideline page while simply asserting, with zero explanation, that "it is notable" doesn't magically make your comment, by contrast, become "based on policy" rather than "what ... you feel", or give it any more force than mine. And sorry, but I still don't buy that police cock-ups or a brief burst of coverage make something notable in any enduring sense. And that is what guidelines say -
  • "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage" ... "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we both missed each other's more detailed explanations first time round I guess. Now we've each seen them. Anyway, again, the facts about the case no doubt make this story especially newsworthy and give it some longevity in terms of news coverage. Of course it will receive further coverage and "analysis" - quite a lot I suspect - and I have never denied or doubted this. But again, they attach to and are concurrent with the event itself, or the series of sub-events - the disappearance, the death and any subsequent trial or inquiry. Hundreds or even thousands of years later, people still write books and ruminate on the importance of the Egyptian Pyramids, the Norman Conquest and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. More closely related, people still do discuss the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, while events such as the killing of Damilola Taylor, Jamie Bulger and Stephen Lawrence have become genuinely iconic - unfortunately - and/or have been the driver for significant subsequent changes, long after the coverage of the deaths per se has faded. Will anything like that apply to this case? Until we know that it does, we should be wary of creating lengthy "encyclopedia" entries about what are basically news stories, albeit temporarily high-profile ones. N-HH talk/edits 14:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're raising the bar far too high. The article satisfies the notability criteria. From your statement above, it's clear that you feel that it will outlast "a relatively short news cycle", and if that's the case then it satisfies the criteria. It doesn't need to be iconic, have a longevity measurable in millennia, or an impact comparable to the Lawrence case. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. Obviously I'm not asking for 1000s of years of coverage and analysis - those first cites were of extreme examples, to make the point. Plus when you refer to the news cycle point, you are a) quoting a section sub-heading, not the substantive guidance, and b) selectively quoting it. Even that headline does not say "any media coverage beyond a short news cycle [and that alone]" is sufficient to satisfy the notability criteria - it says "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", which is a rather obvious truism. What the actual text of the guideline says there, again, is "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". So, what we need is coverage that goes beyond the event itself, or sequence of events, and analysis or discussion following on from it. We have that with the Lawrence case, which is still regularly mentioned and discussed in significant sources on its own terms (ie "iconic") and in terms of its consequences and implications (ie a driver of wider change). We do not yet, by definition, have that here. We have a news event/story, with uncertain prospects. N-HH talk/edits 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that facetiousness apply in a country that is more than 92% white? Nick Cooper (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've seized on the "white" bit but you've ignored the "young", "upper-middle class" and "woman or girl" bits. So yes it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upper-middle class!?!?!?!?!?!? Is that a joke? Have you read ANYTHING AT ALL about the family? Egg Centric 06:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas you've seized on the "upper-middle class" bit but have ignored the "young" and "woman or girl" bits. --86.40.101.83 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with WWGB.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recent developments mean that this is no longer a "disappearance" story, and it is now top story across most UK media sources: BBC News, Sky News, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, etc. And, alas, also that it will now meet the WP:PERSISTENCE guideline. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This applies more to events and not people, other than her disappearance and possible murder what is Tia known for? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So an English child goes missing and BBC News, Sky News, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, go to town. I doubt the same standards would apply if an Australian/Cambodian/Congolese/Irish/Mexican/Uruguayan girl went missing and was featured across the 24-hour local news media where they lived.
It does not matter it seems that Tia is only notable for her death I see no coverage outside of that scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was responding to The Anome's assertion that the coverage they cited would make this notable. I don't believe it would either.
Placed WP:BIO1E as she is presumed dead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable case not just for murder and disappearance but for Police mishandling of the case.Blethering Scot 16:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, several family members initiating a huge search and then being suspected of (in one case, charged with) involvement in her actual disappearance. This aspect of the story has resulted in various comparisons to the Shannon Matthews case in the media. This is why I think it to be a notable enough case for Wikipedia. Melishe (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- BBC reports the discovery of a body. When the identify has been confirmed in the press, this will need to be renamed as the Murder of Tia Sharp. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC reporting the discovery of a body does not make this notable. BBC (and other media outlets across the world) regularly report the discovery of a body. Wikipedia is not a cemetery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- rapidly-devloping and widely-reported case with ramifications far beyond the disappearance/murder itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again other than the possible murder what news coverage does Tia have? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that's beside the point. The article is about the events surrounding the disappearance, not the person. -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion which has nothing to do with the actual AfD process. Should be continued at talk pages if necessary.
What "ramifications"? Vagueness personified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all IP86.40.107.17, learn how to sign your comments. Secondly it is not your job to question every single Keep sayers opinions at this AfD. Especially when you are at the verge of assuming bad faith and also on the verge or personal attack against Tia Sharp in some of your comments. Also it is your first day it seems on Wikipedia, and i would suggest you taking sometime to actually read the guidelines of notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with the guidelines thank you very much. And, no more than anyone else here, where have I personally attacked Tia Sharp? My comments have been completely respectful. This is a discussion about the Tia Sharp article, not Tia Sharp. I think you could do well to remember that yourself.
Sign your comments. Be respectful and don't assume bad faith. And if possible please don't answer back to every single Keep sayer if you don't have justifiable reasons for it such as a clear guideline mishap or similar. Otherwise it will probably just be seen as an annoyance and disruption of the actual AfD discussion. End of discussion from me.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been entirely respectful. Please back up with evidence any more of your outrageous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.17 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing my comments to you at your talk page so I don't see much reason to spill time providing the evidence that is clear when checking a few of your contributions at this AfD. As you will only revert the edits and leave a grumpy/bad faith assumption edit summary. Also a AfD discussion is not the place to continue a meta-debate.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage beyond that of a typical murder. - hahnchen 22:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reading WP:N/CA, it reads The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged - this is a disappearance and a body has been found in one of the family houses. (Although it isn't relevant under that rule, a suspect has been charged: [10].) Autarch (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:N/CA actually says in more detail, emphasis and comment added ... "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". N-HH talk/edits 09:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all very sad, but as this story has developed away from the blazing publicity of last week that the poice actively create when searching for a lost chid, this is now simply coming down to a non-notable murder of an innocent 12 year old by a serial criminal. WP:NOTNEWS would easily seem to cover this, something for WikiNews pages but not an encyclopedia article. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad but run-of-the-mill disappearance/murder of which there are hundreds around the world every day. Only if this case results in changes in law or procedures as in the Soham case, or some other lasting impact, will it become notable. Otherwise, this one is no more notable than the others that quite rightly don't have articles. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see also WP:CRYSTAL we can only go on what we have now and I dont see enough notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:CRYSTAL - and I'm not suggesting speculation, just the facts to be recorded of the case as they happen. if we are talking about notability, then there are millions of articles that would need removing based on the fact that I personally have not heard of the people involved. this is not a WP:LOCAL issue either, as the media sources cover the whole of Europe with much more to come. Christophermiller1981 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those cases (and Bulger, most obviously) had encyclopedic significance for the novel precedents they introduced to the UK legal system. This case so far appears to be nothing of the sort, just another tawdry domestic murder where yet again an adult in a position of family authority turns out to be unfit as such. This has happened before, no doubt it will happen again. This is obviously regrettable morally, clearly a news item, but what encyclopedic importance does it have?
It's possible that this case will yet throw up some encyclopedic significance, maybe a change of police practice on conducting searches for bodies. If and when that happens (per WP:CRYSTAL), then we might create such an encyclopedic article. However we're not yet at that point, nor do events so far indicate that we will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're setting the bar much higher than the policy does. You're assessing the article using your own criterion of "encyclopedic significance", making no reference at all to policy. In my view the article meets the requirements of wp:notability, and so it should be included in Wikipedia. This is event is now part of the collective consciousness of millions of people. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disappearance_of_Tia_Sharp&oldid=507201259"