Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Charlise Mutten

Add links
From 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 no consensus. There is a majority of "Keep" comments here but a significant amount of them are WP:ITSNOTABLE (or worse). Rather than re-list this again it may be better to revisit it in the future. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Charlise Mutten[edit]

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

Killing of Charlise Mutten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:EVENT ie. does not have lasting major consequences, affected a major geographical scope, or has received significant non-routine coverage over a period of time. This wikiarticle has been created way too soon, as news is still breaking about this, it may be appropriate to draftify this article to see what develops. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA#CRYSTAL Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unsorced and about a recent death, so currently elugible for BLPPROD. PamD 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is now sourced, so BLPPROD no longer applies. WWGB (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "article" as it stood at the time it was tagged could almost have been WP:SPEEDY and definitely WP:PROD. However I found it from a Google search for her name, and the event has been in national (I am not in the same state) news for a number of days before her body was found. I would have set about adding to it myself, but WWGB has beaten me (thank you) to the initially confirmed facts, anyway. --Scott Davis Talk 09:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and felt that a topic like this deserved a wiki article, and started one in the hopes that it could later be expanded. Coolabahapple has a good point that the article was made too soon, and I think draftifying (which I assume means deleting) is probably the best cause of action until more develops. Medalpager (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify means move it to draft space, ie, no longer published, so that you and others can keep working on it as appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok, good to know. Medalpager (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the initial surge is it going anywhere? There will no doubt be some more on occasions of court appearances, but that in all likelihood will be very routine. Aoziwe (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVERYONEELSE. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how an article being added to a list makes the subject of the article notable? Normally an article's subject is notable regardless of any list existing, and before it is added to a list? Aoziwe (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVERYONEELSE. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uhh... so who decides whether to keep the article or not? Is it a first past the post thing, is it automatic after a few days, or does an admin have to manually check? I'm not too sure how this deletion thingy works. Medalpager (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An Article for Deletion (AfD) needs to run for seven days. An AfD sometimes is relisted and can be active for up to three weeks. Samboy (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Medalpager. See also WP:!VOTE. Aoziwe (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Had an initial surge of coverage but has definitely tapered off. LibStar (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just announced today that the girl died by gunshot.[1] Far from "tapered off". WWGB (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what do the people supporting "draftify" consider needs to be done to the article before it would be accepted? WP:DRAFTIFY is not a back door to deletion. The article has developed a long way in the six days since it was originally brought here. Considering it has already been rated as "start" (not "stub") class, what would you want before the article could be accepted? --Scott Davis Talk 02:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Davis. I think it just needs a bit more sustainment and something to indicate it is more than a passing news event (of course a sad and tragic one). I think that when it was first created it was a case of WP:TOOSOON. There was, however, encyclopaedic content, with potential for more, so I thought the work should be kept rather than deleted, hence draftify, so that it could be added too easily and republished. The cause of death, while certainly important, only added nine words to the article, so the article is not showing signs dramatically increasing. It might be getting there, and if this AfD gets relisted, it may well be a keep after then, but potential notability is not notability. It is a fine grey line now. Aoziwe (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have just reversed a "keep" close by a non-admin as I believe this afd would be better handled by an admin. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify would be the best solution for now, since this event is still unfolding. TH1980 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftity and expand as information unfolds over the coming months. Over time there will be enough information to warrant an article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable enough for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is now enough coverage to show notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has continued to be improved during this discussion and is not what it was when nominated for deletion. I'm not keen on draftifying as it'll make it harder for our readers to find this article. NemesisAT (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2022 (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/Disappearance_of_Charlise_Mutten&oldid=1070318187"