Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio

]

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

• Comment as Nom.
  WP:NOTNEWS is quite clear: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. ... Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." I would also note that the flurry of keep votes below are a direct result of me notifying all of the contributors to the page (some of whom only write about fast-breaking-events), and may not reflect the consensus of the larger community. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For those who are using the "It's in the news, therefor it must be notable" argument, do any of you have any evidence that it has enduring notability? Notability is not temporary. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone arguing "It's in the news so it can't possibly be notable," please note that most notable events started out as news stories. We do not have to wait for some long period before creating an article, when some extraordinary event occurs.Perhaps you know of numerous other instances where multiple persons were held captive for a decade or so, then rescued, and those cases were non-notable? Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom -- would it be possible to change your "delete" header to "comment"? Per convention, noms don't both nominate and then !vote on their nomination, to avoid the appearance of double-!voting, which of course was not your intent. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Start with the first sentence of NOTNEWS "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. " This story has had significant press in Cleveland plus national/international coverage (AMW etc) for 10 years. Today it is all over the news worldwide. If you like Wikinews so much, go write there instead. So far everything added has been heavily sourced and well balanced. You can't delete because an article might have problems someday maybe. SNOW KEEP. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, it's an OR and PoV magnet (I hope people keep a very close eye on any BLP issues and the like), but it has received a vast amount of press coverage. As much as this is sensationalistic, every major news outlet in the world is covering it. Three women being held captive for a decade is undoubtably notable; this is not a common occurrence. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the relevance of the article. It has good sources and it is well written with the information provided so far. --Meluuu (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. May be revisited in a few months once things settle down. But for now, this is huge. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 2001:db8. This has world wide coverage, and meets the notability guidelines. Just because it will attract POV and OR is not a reason to delete it.Martin451 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. There's always time to delete later. Be bold.
  talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per NOTNEWS. There's always time to add later. Be bolder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is getting global news coverage (I came here to see why it wasn't at least nominated for the ITN slot on the main page) and is clearly an encyclopaedic topic comparable to the Fritzl case - you don't keep three women alive and confined in a suburban home for 10 years while people are actively searching for them without there being long-term enduring coverage and media interest. As of right now I don't see any ORR and only one marked unsourced statement (that is not relevant to the notability). Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, major news even outside the US, many of these news sources are comparing it to the Fritzl case and the kidnapping of Natascha Kampusch. Donnie Park (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Of course there is current news coverage; it's currently a current event. But it doesn't take a
  Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard
  . If deleted, it's just going to be recreated in a month when it's even more obvious that this is not merely a news event. The only thing deletion will accomplish is deprive Wikipedia readers of information of it for a month or so.

Lousy article title, though. TJRC (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being the top story in today's news cycle does not mean that the incident should be deleted. Many notable events have started out as major breaking news stories. As an apparent incident of multiple victims being abducted separately, held for a decade or so, then rescued, it is not a run-of-the-mill abduction or sex crime. We do not have to wait weeks before creating an article about such an incident, which experience and common sense suggests has encyclopedic importance. If somehow the story turns out not to get coverage in the course of the investigation and any trials which take place, then we can delete it some months down the road. If people are putting inappropriate text into the article, then revert/warn/block as necessary and semi-protect the article or fully protect it. It does not make sense, and is not supported by policies or guidelines, to delete the article to prevent people from editing it inappropriately. Edison (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is clearly beyong the realm of mere NEWS, and therefore NOTNEWS does not apply. Agree with the sentiment about the title though... GiantSnowman 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTNEWS does not say "ïf it's in the news WP can't cover it" Now the media is reporting multiple births and miscarriages (hope it is not true, but there was a Criminal Minds episode like this. Not run of the mill.^[1] Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- are you people nuts?! Of course there should be an article on these people being held captive all that time. It's very notable.--
  talk) 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This clearly goes beyond the scope of NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article (lousy title, not withstanding) documents a remarkable event, an extra-ordinary event. It deserves an entry in the annals of documented crimes here on Wikipedia. Haxwell (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This is the major story of the day on every major news outlet and information resource in America, and many major news outlets around the world are giving it coverage. However, its subject matter, relevance of information, and the involvement of mysteries once unsolved will make this article a subject of study and review indefinitely. Just because something is a current event does not merit an automatic deletion just because it's all new and shiny. If that were the case, then how about we go back in time and make sure Wikipedia readers can't read about the Boston Marathon bombings for at least a week? That event is STILL current, and this one may not wrap up anytime soon as well. Again, it's one thing to talk about something with very little exposure and very little lasting power, but this story has and will have neither of those problems.Rickrollerz (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Just because it's a current event doesn't mean that it's not notable. I think that NOTNEWS is more oriented toward keeping Wikipedia free of otherwise non-notable news events that receive minor press coverage. ("For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.") This is a much more substantial and notable story and event and thus I think the article should be kept. AgnosticAphid talk 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Obviously. The rationale for the nomination is made-up one, rather than a wp-accepted rationale for a nomination. Under that thinking, we would delete abortion as a "POV magnet attracting rapid changes without discussion". Goes way beyond nothenews, as explained by a number of the !voters. This is now 18-2 for keep ... snow would be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 7 May 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.