Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

[edit]
Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson (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)

A PROD not made by me was contested with the reasoning that "Deletion on the premise of "missing white woman syndrome" is horrifically racist and not basis for said deletion." However, that fails to establish my and others' main problem: this is a routine news story that was blown out of proportion due to missing white woman syndrome - WP:NOTNEWS applies. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons I gave in the PROD and on the article talk. If "missing white woman syndrome" sounds racist to anyone, feel free to personally disregard that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really doesn't meet that definition if others were killed beforehand. Somewhat routine, but an interstate manhunt and the first state of California Amber Alert in the age of Wireless Emergency Alerts, and that she was taken by somebody she knew, not a random person makes this far more than a MWWS case by far. Nate • (chatter) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the syndrome is just a magnifier (at least how I see it). Without the somewhat notable parts, there's nothing to magnify. Oddly enough, I was just informed on an unrelated YouTube video that of about 800,000 annually reported missing children, about 258,000 were abducted by non-strangers. 115 were taken by strangers. So that it wasn't a case of "Stranger Danger" just makes it more routine. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Nate - somewhat routine, but first WEA Amber Alert in California, and rather unusual circumstances in the actual crime itself. Ansh666 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The alleged kidnapping and murder satisfy the parameters of WP:NOTABILITY. The media coverage is pretty substantial. It would be wrong bit to have an article on this event. JOJ Hutton 18:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medium keep. I'd venture that over-coverage of crimes involving pretty white women (be they victims, suspects, or anything else) is the largest problem with modern media—or at least the problem that the least progress has been made on. If someone were to nominate Death of Caylee Anthony or Murder of Travis Alexander for deletion, part of me would be inclined to support (though I think I'd resist the urge). That's because those were stories where there was literally nothing that made them special, other than the fact that the cable news networks decided to pay attention to them. This case was a bit more complex: There was a major police operation that included an FBI officer killing somebody, and a widely disseminated AMBER alert. And, perhaps most importantly, the media's involvement in this case, if somewhat hysterical, can be argued to have had a legitimate ethical basis (namely raising public awareness, thereby helping to find her), unlike with Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias, where the stories were famous for being famous, and had no other newsworthiness. So, while I don't have too much of a problem with playing the "but why was there substantial coverage?" game, I think in this case there is a legitimate answer to that question. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 19:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources call the tune, and we dance to it. Not the other way around. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We follow the lead set by reliable sources - their editors decide whether a story is notable, not WP editors. We just follow their lead. --B2C 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but direct DiMaggio's name to 'Anderson Kidnapping and Murders'. I don't like to glorify criminals, but the circumstances of his crimes are noteworthy: particularly the Amber Alert going out over phones in California, and that the accused repeated a crime of his father's. tigerstripes (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson kidnapping and murders (murders and kidnapping, maybe) seems best to me, if we keep it at all. Seems undue weight to focus on the one of five who survived. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support InedibleHulk's suggestion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Tigerstripes' suggestion, to be fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I second IH's support of TS' good idea! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I back your encouragement of the tiger endorsement, and the circle's complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using the surname is probably the best. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd say Anderson murders and kidnapping, to go in chronological order (though I'm not too sure that it matters). But yes, it should be renamed. Ansh666 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in criminological order (that is, murder is more serious). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There have been a large number of articles added covering crimes that have no lasting impact or national/global scope in spite of WP:EVENT. While kidnapping did cross multiple states, this kidnapping has not demonstrated that it will have any impact afterwards. At the risk of speculating, I would guess that this kidnapping won't have any lasting impact (beyond affecting the Amber Alert system) in the future. IMO, anything related to the Amber Alerts should go in the Amber Alerts article rather than here. Transcendence (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so technically satisfies WP:N. But we collectively decided that mere routine news events, or routine crimes, while they satisfy the news judgement of newsmedia editors seeking to maintain viewership/readership, are not automatically encyclopedic. This story rises above "routine crime" in that it allegedly included a double murder, by a family friend, followed by the first use of celphone statewide Amber alert, and concluded with a shootout killing the alleged badguy by the FBI and a rescue of the victim. Thus it has several elements which elevate it above the average murder or kidnapping, just as the kidnapping of the Cleveland trio, or the emergency landing of a plane by Chesley Sullenberger rise above similar but less encyclopedic events. Edison (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the widespread and reliably sourced coverage, it was a case of double murder (and the killing of a family dog), had unique significance in the use of the Amber Alert system, involved a protracted search by hundreds of volunteers, included a surprise appearance by four concerned citizens on horseback (one of whom was a retired sheriff), and culminated in an FBI shoot-out and the safe return of the kidnap victim to her father. New information indicates that the perpetrator's father once also held a 16 year old girl captive at gunpoint and that he, the father, committed suicide on the exact same date, 15 years earlier, that marked the perpetrator's death in this case. Certainly these elements will make this case memorable for years to come. 70.36.137.217 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're certain, you have a better memory than me! But yeah, it'll make a good TV movie, and TV movies are often looked back on for early roles of new stars. I'm almost tempted to change my mind to weak delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.William Jockusch (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS for the following reasons. A) It involved much more than a simple kidnapping, but also involves murder and arson, not a routine combination. B) It was the top headline on national websites (CNN) and radio (CBS Radio) across multiple days (I can't confirm television, as I don't watch much, and does NOR apply to AfD debates? <grin>) C) The incident is used in analysis of the Amber Alert system in general. See [1] under heading "Why Hannah's case was unusual". Although it certainly must be acknowledged that the incident predicates the discussion, but it appears likely this incident will become part of the long-term dialogue regarding Amber Alert. For what it's worth, I think this incident also goes beyond MWWS, as when the story first became front-page material the ethnicity was not established, and Ethan's body had not been discovered so the initial Amber alerts included two individuals. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Alex (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't imagine how anybody would oppose the presence of this page. It is a very notable and infamous kidnapping and murder case, and it has received national and international news coverage for nearly two weeks, and will receive more coverage for a long time afterward. Not to mention, it's all described as an "unusual case" by many people, including law enforcement. Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I slightly agree with above. smileguy91talk 04:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as totally tragic that this story is, there is no encyclopaedic analyse of the event in the article, no attempt to demonstrate any lasting significance to this crime, it is just a news story and as such has no place here by policy, is should be over at Wikinews. LGA talkedits 09:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To dismiss this story as 'routine news' blown out of proportion is incredibly naive -- yes, kidnappings happen, but they rarely result in massive manhunts and FBI agents immediately getting involved. Lots of less remarkable, actually routine crimes have their own wikipedia pages simply because of the ensuing media circus. Why target one of the few pages which is actually notable? I am the radiohead (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI, the name of the article is also up for discussion, see Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This case involved the Amber Alert system in multiple states, which is highly unusual. It was also the first time, California used their new statewide cellphone alert notification system. It's also a case where a victim who was not abducted due to a custody battle was rescued. The case is still in the national media almost two weeks later, as more information is continuing to come out. Now, there's discussion about Hannah's use of social media so soon after she was rescued. The events of this case are not what I would consider routine at all. Laladoodle92 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As creator, I believe this is an event that will probably be made into a Lifetime movie (mentioned above). Significant coverage suffices notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A widely covered story that's still developing. And it doesn't fit the "missing white woman" stereotype. Too many odd and unique facets to the story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample and ongoing coverage in numerous nationwide reliable and verifiable sources. The efforts to trivialize this case and justify deletion based on a supposed "missing white woman syndrome" are both utterly disturbing and completely irrelevant. Our job is not to judge the reasons for coverage in reliable sources; but to determine that it is being covered in these sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, This may not even have been a kidnapping, extremely premature to have such a page asserting "kidnapping" until investigations are completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.134.231 (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one is pretty obvious guys (and gals). It's still a national story and clearly meets the notability guidelines and you want to delete the article? I just don't understand. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensively covered in national news, a multi state incident involving alleged kidnapping, torture, multiple murder and arson, and fear of IED's. Its not our problem if the media gave it too much attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Again, per WP:NOTNEWS PrairieKid (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Merge into Amber Alert, which already has Amber's case. Most of the reasons to keep don't have to do with the case, but more with the Amber Alert System anyway. PrairieKid (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is a notable story as it is receiving coverage in newspapers from all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.71 (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no evidence of long-term effects of this event, failing NOTNEWS and NEVENT. This is type of story Wikinews is prime for, and mention in Amber Alert can point to that, but it is not an encyclopedic topic. Note: broad international coverage does not equate to notability, we are looking for the long-tail in sources, not a burst of broad coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is bogus. You can't possibly know how this story is going to turn out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's a reason to not have created the article in the first place, per NEVENT. Event articles should only be created once the event is shown to be long-term notable. While there is google news hits about the event, they remain recaps and primary sourcing and very little about effects that the event will have on the future. This is why if people want to create articles on current events, start at Wikinews, and we can transwiki in when the event proves notable. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That argument is equally bogus. You have no way to know anything about it long-term. Six months from now, if it has come to nothing, you could ask for it to be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
  • Keep This is similar to the attempt to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuaed Abdo Ahmed. Every time there is a crime with national and international coverage that is every bit as serious as a terrorist attack, there are numerous attempts to call it non-notable and delete it if it has "no lasting effect". It almost seems that the number of people who try to delete such articles could be part of a deliberate disinformation effort as part of a planned and coordinated attack staged to look like a non-notable crime. In the case of Ahmed, it was a young man with parents from Yemen who had made recent trips to Dubai and Yemen with indications he "liked" Islam, hostage taking and attacking tanks on his facebook page. Redhanker (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't forget that millions of people eat chicken eggs every morning. Doesn't mean it's a deliberate and coordinated attack on chickens (at least not by the consumers). Just a matter of common interests/disinterests. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and millions of people, after that routine breakfast, kidnap a family from their home, bring them to their own home, torture and kill the victims, torch their own house, and then drive a thousand miles with one of the victims, and get gunned down by police. Yep, it happens millions of times every day. Nothing special about it. It gets a lot of news coverage, but wikipedians are smarter than national news reporters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point. That was a response to Redhanker's theory of a deletionist conspiracy, nothing to do with the murders. Many people independently eat eggs, many propose questionable articles for deletion. Murder and kidnapping is also routine, but not to an egg breakfast extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have missed the point. There's not an overt "conspiracy" as Redhanker alleges, but there is mostly definitely a zealous effort, by some, to impose a pedantic, narrow-minded viewpoint on Wikipedia, that effort being considered somehow more important than the fact it makes Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event may very well stay in the news for a while. SOXROX (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has gotten 47791 hits thus far in under a week. People like me come to Wikipedia for information. You get updated and more accurate and detailed information about anything in the news. This gets reliable coverage. There are more than 2,100 children a day reported missing in America alone. The news media chooses which ones to give coverage to, based on what ratings they can milk out of it. This case, like others of its kind, will continue to get coverage for awhile now. Dream Focus 09:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use Wikinews then, which is specifically set up to provide wiki-style news reporting. We're an encyclopedia, and there's no evidence this event will have any influence in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't have evidence anything will be of any influence in the future. You think anyone will remember most of the famous people we have today, or most of the kings of the past, or the majority of films, books, comics, games, and whatnot that have articles? And no one uses wikinews, ever, never have and never will. Wikipedia is not paper, we're not running out of space, so no reason to have things that bring people here in droves. Nothing gained by deleting this. Dream Focus 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is an encyclopedia and there are limits to what is appropriate to include, NOTNEWS stands as one of those. People will read Wikinews once editors actually start using it for what's not appropriate for an encyclopedia, where issues like notability don't get involved in article creation. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Encyclopedic long-term notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reached both national and international coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson&oldid=1169491237"