Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)

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. After the relisting that was performed to ensure fairness in the discussion process, consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America1000 02:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Torso found in 1960 in state of advanced decomposition and unable to be identified. No

WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources beyond initial 1960 news article. Google search and Google news
search return no relevant links.

Other Unidentified Persons Database reference contains no details that meet

WP:RS
.

Victim was toddler or young child when murdered and at time of murder was not notable for anything else.

AldezD (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - NOTNEWS does not apply here. Clearly notable. Per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Better sourcing could be an option though. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination is spiteful and frivolous. This article was patrolled when it was created and found to be acceptable for Wikipedia.
    talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: There’s a WP:ANI thread relevant to this comment. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recently uncovered several more resources giving information for the victim and planned to update it when I got the chance. I feel the case meets sourcing requirements as the presence of primary and secondary currently are used in the article and more will soon be added.The Doe Network does have law enforcement background and even has members that are liaisons/officers of law enforcement facilities. This AFD seems rushed, in my opinion. No need to get too carried away. --GouramiWatcher(?) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I was not canvassed, as I have made significant contributions to the article itself and other related topics. --GouramiWatcher(?) 20:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reformat to event article She wasn't even an entire corpse, just a torse. At least as far as anyone here knows. Of course, she used to be a person, but nothing she did during that time was worth a mention, let alone significant coverage. Jane Doe's body parts turn up all the time, and while I appreciate the clever nickname separating her from the rest, that nickname doesn't help her notability case a bit. See nobody for details. The hubbub got some attention, but she did essentially nothing. Not a real biography. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When her identity becomes known, we can rename it "Murder of ...", as we did with
Caledonia Jane Doe, and a couple of other recently-identified UIDs. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
In a perfect world, we'd wait to see if she was murdered, too. We don't even know the cause of death, let alone the manner. "Little Miss Nobody case" would cover everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could be "Death of ..." if any determination of the cause of death does not state that it's a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes LMN buried herself in that creek bed. ("
talk) 01:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Burying a body isn't killing a person (unlawfully or otherwise). Maybe she ate some bad tuna, her parents freaked out because social workers warned them about that tuna, they swept her under the rug and told the state she went to live on a farm with her grandparents. Or something entirely different, but still not murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I just added more information from the resources I had saved previously (more than doubling the amount prior to the AFD), the cause of the girl's death was never determined. However, authorities expressed suspicions of foul play and some of the sources stated it was murder. Notably, Bella Bond was found in a garbage bag and remained unidentified until last week. Her death cause was never determined but officials went ahead and stated it was homicide, as well as the allegations made by Bella's mother that her boyfriend has punched the girl until she died.--GouramiWatcher(?) 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you're going with the Bella Bond thing, but yeah, it's definitely suspicious. People suspected foul play in the Salish Sea human foot discoveries, too. It's human nature to not think of bad fish eating us. We blame our neighbours instead. But suspicion doesn't make something real enough for an article title. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where exactly is it stated that only the torso of the victim was found? As far as I've read, it was determined that the child had teeth that were well-cared for and that she had painted her toenails.
    NAMUS profile states "all parts recovered." --GouramiWatcher(?) 00:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I heard it from the nominator, just sort of assumed it was true. My bad. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His story about SIGCOV seems to check out, though. A local (partial) skeleton. Two steps below Mountain Meadow Massacre remains and four below Romanov cremains. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most people today outside Philadelphia wouldn't recognise
talk) 01:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Trying and failing, evidently. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So not only is this AFD spiteful and frivolous, the nominator didn't even get the facts right. What a Mickey Mouse operation he is.
    talk) 00:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Paul, as much as I know how frustrating it is to get an article AFD'ed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Stevik (3rd nomination) is a good example) it's best to stay away from comments like this. It could only make the situation worse.--GouramiWatcher(?) 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'm just increasingly frustrated with
talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Does it count as "making national news" if several papers in various American places run the same AP story? That's all I'm seeing (white shorts, checkered blouse, leather sandals). Could be missing something big, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question first, the copycat/herd mentality nature of corporate media is used quite often to justify recentist piffle, even when the end result amounts to a
WP:BLP1E violation. I have no real opinion on the article, but rather wanted to say something about this topic in general. I came across Wikipedia's coverage of unidentified murder victims through work on Robert Hansen. The tone conferred through this coverage suggests that Wikipedia is being used as a venue for advocacy on the issue. For that reason alone, I would be suspicious of anything I see on here in this topic area. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Most (if not all) articles on this topic on Wikipedia are added only when there is a reasonable amount of information available on the case and if there is some level of prominence to the public. Users that have created these pages know this. Otherwise Wikipedia would look more like The Doe Network, the Unidentified Wikia or NamUs with thousands of short, stubby articles. --GouramiWatcher(?) 05:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a widely covered instance of unidentified victim/unsolved murder that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Is it still widely covered when we count all the AP articles as one?
Anyway, according to this other AP story, another "Little Miss Nobody" was buried right beside this one, thirty years later. We don't have Francine Meegan, but she could make for a third paragraph in the Burial section here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment spreading via the Associated Press is the pre-Internet equiv of
    talk) 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The newswires are still alive and well in this modern day. Still count as one source. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just realised that the last edit to the Little Miss Nobody article or talk page before
    talk) 04:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nothing wrong with checking someone's edit history. It's all as public as the edits are.
Hounding is another story. I just creeped your contributions and notice you said the same thing at the administrator's noticeboard, except you also want this AfD thrown out for this. That gameplan is pretty much doomed; if you want the article kept, just wait. I'm only objecting to the lack of notability for the record. I don't expect it to change the outcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm just increasing frustrated with his behaviour. I'm sorry.
talk) 07:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe your frustration leads to his behaviour (or alters the way you perceive his behaviour). Heather O'Rourke once said talking about things makes them happen, and she seems to be the root of this problem. Rather than apologize to me, who you haven't wronged, maybe try apologizing to and forgiving your enemy instead. Who better could use it? Might help settle the disruptions. Or maybe I'm a delusional hippie. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was *not*
WP:CANVASSing
. to quote Daniel Case on my talk page "I just warned you because it could be used in the AfD to discredit a keep consensus (although in this case I genuinely think you weren't trying to do that)". Plus, all the people i notified had the following apply to them:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field
talk) 03:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment on your note Whether someone has been
Wikipedia administrator who will eventually decide upon this RfC is not the party responsible for deciding on the charge of canvassing. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: The third diff given in the above note was a removal of the note itself. The WP:CANVASS notification was only removed twice. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to withdraw from this AfD. It is obvious that even keeping to Wikipedia policy on who to notify in
talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
(edited to add): definitely burnt out. I thought Little Miss Nobody was as notable as say
talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Just an impartial observation, but at this point there are no “delete” votes, and there are “keep” votes from editors who were not directly notified. Doesn’t seem on track for deletion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is sort of a delete vote. Burn the biography, raise an event article. Essentially would have the same content, but she's indisputably not notable for anything she did as a person. Other people's discovery of her corpse at least touches the "notable enough" line. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I was not canvassed. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is a fairly classic example of a true crime story — unidentified remains from 50 years ago, victim's age unknown, case unsolved. Lots of media coverage at the time and another round of coverage of the fact that this is an old unsolved case. That does not an encyclopedia article make. NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and NOTPOLICEBLOTTER are the relevant guidelines. I would urge that this be held open another week to see what a truly random selection of community members feel about the notability here as this feels very much like a packed jury. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have indeed been asked by
    this particular editor in all my years in Wikipedia. Cheers - and, people, loosen up, will you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
off-topic
I would have prefferred if it would have taken place after the AfD was over, but it's good to
be bold.--GouramiWatcher(?) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This is shaping up to be a replay of the now closed RfC about whether or not "murder" signifies "murderer". Let's please don't. Here's the consensus of the competent authorities: "Investigators at the scene...observed that the individual or individuals responsible for the burial had possibly made several attempts to dig different graves for the body, as disturbances in the sand near the body suggested. ... Her cause of death was never successfully determined by medical examiners. Police guessed she had been murdered, given the circumstances of the crime scene." I would kindly ask InedibleHulk to revert his edit. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. "Police guessed she had been murdered...". Their guess remains as good as anyone's, and a guess is a pretty flimsy thing to hang an article title on, especially when the new disambiguator is 100% true and inclusive (this whole thing's a cold case), far more concise and doesn't frame this as a biography (lacking any biographical info).
Not sure what that first quote was supposed to mean here. How someone died has no bearing on how many tries it takes to dig a grave. That's up to the ground quality and your tools. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that the opinion of the police carries the same weight as "anyone's"? Is it perhaps in your plans to strike off the criteria for
reliable sources? Are we going to have, at long last, total relativism in this world of ours? This is getting interesting, if not downright amusing. -The Gnome (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. Since this AfD started, you made nine (9) changes to the article, most of them in relation to the very nature of the case, which, as it happens, is directly linked to this AfD. This is not "being
"being bold" but, to put it mildly, bad form. -The Gnome (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The nature of the case is it's unsolved. It's certainly not a murder case, even presuming police can guess better than anyone. And most of them were grammar and wordiness edits. The most substantial bit was attributing the vague "It is believed" to the police, instead of say, anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been gently reminded that Wikipedia does recognize that some parties' "opinions" or "guesses" carry far more weight than others'. The former are
reliable sources and the latter, well, they are not. Yet, you're keen to re-write or ignore Wikipedia's rules, which is what makes you write: "...even presuming police can guess better than anyone". There is no "presuming" to be made, sir. That is utter nonsense. -The Gnome (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources say the police guessed it was murder. That's all. And the article relays that just fine. There was no murder investigation, because the coroner couldn't tell whether to check the "Homicide" box. If that proper authority had, then the police guess would start carrying weight. But as things actually turned out, that's as far as we still know, despite the best guesses of Sergeant Joe and Average Joe. It's a thrilling 0-0 tie, during which time the people who actually knew probably died mysteriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is anything but "thrilling" is this tiresomely maniacal effort to "keep Wikipedia from judging" anything. In reality, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a judge of anyone or anything; it merely reflects what's out there, in the context of
third-party, reliable sources. Here's what might be confusing you: The entry's text currently reads, "The police guessed [etc]". But police departments and especially American ones have rarely if ever used the word "guess" in regards to their assessments, either as a noun or as a verb, in their official statements. Which means that the loaded term "guess", on which you are trying to anchor an argument, is either the term used by the newspaper (on an impossible to read facsimile), or more probably one chosen by a careless Wikipedia editor. To recap: Police assessments do not carry the same weight as "anyone's", at least not in the context of Wikipedia editing, despite what you might think. They carry way more weight! And what we have coming out of the competent, responsible police department is that this is a murder case
whether we like that or not, and whether we agree with that or not. Please, make an effort to understand how Wikipedia works. -10:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I just found an online version of the news article. Turns out the headline was wrong, and the story doesn't mention guessing or murder. Just police appealing for clues. So there you go. It does call this the "Little Miss Nobody case", oddly enough. I can't find a single thing saying this ever became a murder case. Have you? The DoeNetwork lists only the medical examiner under "Investigating agencies". Why'd you quote "keeping Wikipedia from judging"? I didn't say that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rome one doesn't mention murder, either. So I've removed the "presuming" and "guessed" bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it make more sense to refer to the article simply as Death of Little Miss Nobody? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The past is truly a different country.
talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of canvassing concerns.  Sandstein  17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling it non-notable, just keep in mind that The Huffington Post publishes about 1,900 articles per day. At that rate, they mention everything. It's not like there's a bar to clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am a bit skeptical about the weight given to The Huffington Post. The blog post is essentially the work of two people at The Lineup. Apparently you can let them know if you find something interesting and it might make its way into their project which in turn could make its way into The Huffington Post. The Wikipedia article predates their article by a couple months, so it wouldn't surprise me if they used Wikipedia as their source. It's proof of nothing, but you'll be hard pressed to find information in that article that isn't already in Wikipedia. -
Location (talk) 12:54, 8 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Miss_Nobody_(American_murder_victim)&oldid=1222060019"