Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becca (decedent)

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Becca (decedent)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is cited entirely to primary sources and is therefore WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PSTS, and WP:Verifiability. Even if sources are located to pass GNG; this is a strong candidate for WP:TNT given the OR issues involving a sensitive topic. 4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don’t feel it is necessary to delete this page especially as it’s about such a mysterious and major case of an unidentified decedent. Judging from the reasons you have given, it sounds like changing sources from ones that are primary to ones that are NOT primary would fix the issue. Ellissten (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellissten Assuming secondary sources exist, the material would have to be completely rewritten which is why WP:TNT applies. Given the sensitive nature of this topic and out of respect for the person who died, I don't see how we can allow an article built entirely from original research to remain in main space. We aren't allowed to interpret primary sources like law enforcement websites on wikipedia per policy at WP:No original research and WP:NCRIME. That said, at AFD we require evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources to be produced in order to keep an article under WP:GNG policy. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments which speculate that sources exist without producing them is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sad story, but there doesn't appear to be much written about her. The one CBS source is fine, but it's not enough to build a wiki article. I don't see much of anything else in a Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete No indication of being notable, as not indication of significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 30 September 2023 (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.