Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

Add links
Source: 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

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
]
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]
  • I'm not sure what either of the above two comments have to do with this. The event is covered in multiple reliable sources, but there's no evidence of this being long-standing. An event just being covered doesn't mean notability. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be rather hard to provide such evidence, seeing as this is still largely a current event. You're reversing the burden of proof here. — 
    talk • block) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I moved this here, as the user originally posted this on the talk page of this AfD.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:06, 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]
  • I like the proposed name as well, so I support move to
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 15 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]
    • Even if it wasn't, it was treated and referred to as one. Ansh666 06:26, 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]
          • Go to https://en.wikinews.org/ and click random article a few times. There is no way possible Wikinews will ever catch on. The main page gets less hits per day than this article is getting now! [2] LOL! No. It was a failed project from the start, and years later, its still dead and ignored. Dream Focus 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I want overview information on something, I go to Wikipedia first. Wikinews? Worthless. I go to CNN or BBC if I want news. Then I see what Wikipedia has on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 19 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]
  • What you look for is "long-term notability", which you have no way to know yet. If nothing comes of it, you can always propose deletion at an appropriate time, such as six months to a year or two from now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per
    Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep but rename to include the murders. If a new book were getting this much press, it would absolutely warrant its own article. Notability for crime is different, but with multiple segments on sources like the NBC Nightly News, it easily passes any reasonable standard for notability. Andrew327 15:40, 19 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"