Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Brandon Crisp

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. Sandstein 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Brandon Crisp

Current story making the rounds b/c a boy ran away from home when his dad confiscated his xbox, and there's reward money offered for his return. I deleted Brandon Crisp per privacy concerns, but it was recreated in the form of the event. I figured I should put this before the community instead of deleting it myself, but I'd still say that Wikipedia is for people and events with established historical notability. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 06:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not historically important. People who have information on it should report that to the police so he can be found, not to WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Anti venin 07:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic news story.--Michig (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews where it belongs. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews. If the story develops into information worthy of an encyclopedic article, then bring it back... later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies all qualifications for a proper Wikipedia article. Of course, as I created the article, I'm a bit biased, but I have what I think are some legitimate objections. You argue that things of limited historical significance don't belong here, even though notability is entirely a subjective qualifier, and in my opinion, it fulfills those criteria (please see the number of articles mentioning the case on Google's News Aggregator: Currently there are over 1,000). As the 'Wikipedia is Not' page mentions, Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article., and this article is none of those things. The case has reached a higher level of social significance now as it has fueled some argument over the effect of video games on children, and this article should remain here, because it provides a robust source of information about this notable case to those seeking it. As for the privacy issues, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Please see the 1,000 articles mentioning his name above. DarrenBaker (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everything that is in the news violates WP:NEWS. Looking at the sources cited in the article, and those that can be found on Google now, it appears that this is a crime that is widely reported in Canada, and now is spreading beyond the borders there, with America's Most Wanted giving it publicity. Yes, I know, kids disappear every day. In some cases, such as the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, the press outside the community starts following the story and it becomes more widely known. I conclude that, nearly three weeks after the fact, this crosses into notability due to the coverage from secondary sources. I don't think it's likely that someone with information will post it here rather than reporting it to the police. Rather, the event will probably be something of lasting interest, even if not importance. A WP article is a good place for accurate information for those who are interested. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for similar AfD decisions of temporarily widely covered incidences/people in the media, please see this AfD and this one. Both get a ton of Google hits and have a lot of reliable sources. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the examples, but I don't think they apply fully in this case. The first one you cite is a biographic page about a person notable for only one event (and therefore should have been removed), and the second was removed for legitimate privacy concerns - specifically the naming of multiple juveniles only tangentially related to the facts in the article. Again, I must reiterate my objection to the privacy issue, since I am certain this article satisfies all guidelines laid out in WP:BLP. As for Steve Dufour's comment above, if a person were to use this article to release information about the case rather than reporting it to the police, that person would be guilty of a number of crimes - but it would still have no bearing whatsoever on this article's legitimacy. DarrenBaker (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford's reasoning. — Nova Dog — (contribs) 23:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (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.