Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey Smith

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 no consensus. --

Kelsey Smith

Kelsey Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Keep, Keeping this article adds to the already standing list of victims at the
  MWWS entry. Dyno541
  3:55PM, 7 June 2007 Eastern Time.

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]

• by that logic it seems you would want to delete
  Dru Sjodin as well. Talmage 08:30, 7 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]
• The majority of most famous people's lives aren't notable. What makes them notable is their accomplishments, noteriety or — as unfortunately the case is here — their abduction and grisly death, and also the resulting media attention. Also, per
  WP:SOURCE, police scanners are not reliable sources, so that cancels out that argument. [[Briguy52748 12:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]][reply
  ]
• By that logic, we should also delete Paris Hilton! Hmmm, on second thought, maybe we should... --Itub 13:14, 7 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
  Wildthing61476 20:36, 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]
      • Uh, don't look now but they've already arrested someone. I'd be very surprised if this is news even tomorrow, and it sure won't be on AMW. --Durin 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Her case is still being featured on the show as a follow-up. AcePuppy 18:41, 7 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.
  ! _{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]
• Keep I use Wikipedia daily, like now when I searched for this. I agree that it's media sensationalism, but because space isn't an issue, Wikipedia shouldn't be deciding what reported event is worthy to be included ... What if someone wants to do a research project on MWWS, wouldn't it be nice to have these articles etc? 70.254.205.24 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are rightfully articles on
  Laci Peterson, etc. Talmage 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Obvious keep. This seems like a no-brainer to me. This story has received prominent coverage in the American news media. Though coverage may be fleeting, once notable is always notable, and I think it's safe to say this has already made it to that point. The past few days, it's been impossible to turn on CNN, etc. without hearing something about this case. I'd like to believe that high-profile news events should be inherently notable. --Czj 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  Natalee Holloway, etc. all still have an article, there's no reason that this should be any different. --EmperorFedor

  Comment That is the invalid

  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Each article must stand on its own merits.Edison 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Comment - Then we should do a AFD on Natalee Holloway and the other missing white girls. No offense, but as she's young, modelesque, commnity-loved, well-natured and Caucasian, the coverage will continue to flow. More crap in a few from Star and the other rags. I RE-ASSERT my keep 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Then aside from the Holloway etc. cases, there's also the fact that the case has received international media attention, as well as the circumstances involved (broad daylight, on tape), the fact that the story is still developing, etc, etc. I also reassert my Keep. -EmperorFedor

• Keep per Czj. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The case is relevant, and needs to be linked to the TARGET corporation because of its efforts in video tracking of everything in and around its stores. That is what really made this case end up solved quickly. Along with the cell phone pings... a remarkable case, when you compare it against
  Dru Sjodin's case. ---Sturmde 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Obviously notable due to the media coverage. The argument that "we might as well add every single abduction that happens every single day around the world" is nonsensical; we are talking here about an abduction that, unlike 99.99% of abductions, was covered by the international media. Whether this case itself is more "important" than the other 99.99% in an objective sense is not relevant, and not for us to decide. --Itub 12:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral — Yes, I agree that many people go missing every day as the nominator notes, and this case got media attention due to the MWWS. Yet, I want to take a wait-and-see attitude on this case; if this winds up your ordinary "kill the pretty white woman" case, then I'd delete. However, I also agree that we just cannot speculate on what developments (e.g., motives) might arise; perhaps something will come about that will make Ms. Smith's case unique. Also, it is not Wikipedia's role to determine which cases get national media attention. as several editors have pointed out. Briguy52748 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Weak Keep - May just be another case of
  Taylor Behl was to keep. Sectryan 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP - If you're bitching about how other major-media stories don't get an article, than make an article for those stories. Let's not delete the work of someone who added something of fact to Wikipedia. 12:19, 7 June 2007 (EST)
• Strong Keep This story has had national media attention for days. Jinxmchue 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If Wikipedia will devote pages of useless information to people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, who have done NOTHING noteworty, surely Wikipedia will devote small articles to young women violently murdered with whom the public has empathized (despite however fundamentally shallow these emotions may be). Some people prefer reading a Wikipedia article to gain information that has not been cluttered by typical press release jargon and doublespeak - why deny a murder victim and/or the ensuing murder prosecution a entry in Wikipedia? The article already exists; deleting it just succeeds in removing factual information from a fact-based website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.140.254.10 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 June 2007(UTC).
• Keep - I agree that this is a no-brainer keep. While the victim herself may not be (or have been) notable, clearly -- at this point -- the event itself is indeed notable. (JosephASpadaro 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Notable only because of the circumstances of her death. Outside of family and friends, who will remember her in 5 years? WWGB 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Exactly -- notable for the circumstances of the death -- but notable nonetheless. Furthermore, we remember

  Kitty Genovese -- also notable only because of the circumstances of her death -- more than 40 years after her murder. (JosephASpadaro 05:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply

  ]

• Keep. While WWGB may have a point per se, I believe people may want to research this further. Without a proper conclusion, this article may be more encyclopedic in the near future. When Jessica Lunsford was initially found, people might have come to same consensus, but look at the legislation that came from it. I certainly feel it is too early to delete this as if nothing else it provides a bias-free point of information. Natalee Holloway just got more coverage. An abstain might be logical, but I believe this will be encyclopedic, even if only to a law student a few years from now. 65.83.231.100 00:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly, though the article should be about the incident, not a biography. Huge national media attention makes the notability a no-brainer, applying our policies in a straightforward manner. — brighterorange (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm in complete agreement with Brighterorange, above.
• Keep The reason I came to read the article is because I'd seen a report on CNN (but I live outside the USA) and I was looking for the background to a case I'd never heard of before then. For that reason the article has value and I suppose she is (was) notable if people in other countries are hearing about her. EdX20 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest
  Complete Geek 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - unremarkable person. how many victims have been featured on,
  Philip Laurence 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - She was not notable before abduction, and while tragic, her abduction and death is not notable. Tom M. 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and every person that is a victim of a crime isn't suitable for an encyclopedia entry. AniMate 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the entry is titled "Kelsey Smith disappearance," when it should be "Kelsey Smith murder." To me this speaks volumes to the appropriateness of this for Wikinews rather than Wikipedia, as it is a developing news story. I'm honestly confused by people who argue that this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia based on media coverage when there is an appropriate venue in Wikinews that is specifically designed to catalog media stories and events. AniMate 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with

WP:N or not see how it applies? This incident has been front-page news for over a week. — brighterorange (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep eLLe.Le 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability has been established due to heavy media attention, and the tag has already been removed from the Edwin R. Hall. I personally think this AfD should be closed early. Although some people are clearly upset this is getting so much media attention, and feel that the way to counter it would be to remove the article, that's personal bias against MWWS getting in the way. --Milton 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We wouldn't be having this fuss if she was some random non-caucasian from Brooklyn.Merumerume 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the discussion about. Although I agree, notability has been established due to heavy media attention. --Milton 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not our place to decide who should become notable, only to document those who have become notable, regardless of our personal feelings of whether they merit this notability. When much of the country knows her name, she has become notable, like it or not. Talmage 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It is not our place to decide who should become notable, only to document those who have become notable", I find that comment to be silly. If Wikipedians do not determine notability, then what does? Is there some form of cosmic intervention that makes the decision for us? We have guidelines to establish notability, let's use them responsibly and consistently. WWGB 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it has gotten media attention, but that doesn't mean it is fit for an encyclopedia. We have to think long-term, this is after all an encyclopedia that will stay on for hundreds of years (that is,
  if the human species survives that long), and I just don't see this is something that will be relevant in 30 years. Jon Harald Søby 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: Disagree.

Kitty Genovese was (and is) "notable" only because of the circumstances of her murder. That was 40+ years ago in 1964. (JosephASpadaro 00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

Comment - yes, but she is notable because of the "discovery" of

Philip Laurence 11:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment, again, another

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS never mind. Merumerume 06:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, well publicised crime victim (see also Joshua Bryant and Lillian Martin for a similar case which was kept). Zerbey 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the subject is notable and verifiable through multiple non-trivial sources. RFerreira 07:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep publicity and cultural impact sufficient reason. Tfine80 22:31, 10 June 2007 (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.