Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Gerow

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 September 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Strong consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)~~ NAC is for non-controversial closes and since a previous NAC was reversed after push back I simply cannot fathom how this could have been considered to be suitable for a non-controversial close. I am therefore striking the NAC. This discussion appears defective as the event appears notable but the deletion argument and issue appears to be around the identification of the victim that has not been sourced to any reliable source. On that basis and to try to get to the root of this issue, I have moved the page to Pima County Jane Doe until such time as some proper sourcing linking the body to Brenda Gerow emerges. Is this the consensus of this discussion? I agree its not, but it dopes seem to be the best way to resolve this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Gerow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME. This is not a BLP, but my reading of those policies is that the principles are approximately the same. It's difficult to find substantive sources on this, beyond some news articles about the police requesting information. The present article tries to fill the gaps with Blogspot and a web forum. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is arguably notable because the subject had remained unidentified for three decades after her death, which is unusual, reliable primary and secondary sources with nationwide coverage are used to support the information in the said article. Plenty of other articles with the predicament of lacking "substantive sources" (which I feel is not the case with this one) are kept and simply given a {{ref improve}} template. The article was created while the subject was unidentified and was not intended to be solely about her- only the event. Someone had changed the name of the article after she was identified without any discussion and should have been moved to "Murder of ...". Personally, I had heard that she had been identified as Brenda, yet I declined to change the article because no reliable sources had confirmed that the body was indeed hers, which is why very few sources on the web have information about "Brenda Gerow." --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CRIME. The sourcing isnt great but not enough to justify deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, in WP:CRIME are you referring to? I don't see how it meets the criteria there. Geogene (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsolved crime with ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally closed as Keep but unsurprisingly the nom's unhappy and to be totally honest I can't be arsed to argue so to keep everyone happy I've reopened. –Davey2010^Talk
Comment - the interaction in question is here [1] for posterity. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to come to my talkpage and basically speak to me like shit you're going to get told to fo it's as simple as that, Alls you need to have said was "Dave I disagree with your closure could you please open it" which would've got a much better response. –Davey2010^Talk 10:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:CRIME #1. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand. There are no sources in the article stating that this person is "Brenda Gerow". - Location (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.