Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of David Guerrero

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of David Guerrero[edit]

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

Another "disappearance" article that seems to fall into the WP:NOTNEWS trap. It is categorised as a crime but there is nothing to prove that it is anything other than one of many thousands of routine disappearances that happen every year. We are not a missing persons database and some of the sourcing is pretty poor. Sitush (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carlease Simms. There are loads more such articles but it will take a while to do a WP:BEFORE on all of them. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable disappearance worthy of inclusion, doesn't have to be a crime to make disappearance status. Also a lot of the sources are creditable as well, and there are YouTube videos on it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't verifiably a crime but someone (you?) included Category:Crime in Spain. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument we recommend to avoid because it is weak. Nothing suggests that this disappearance had a historical importance, nor does anything reach outside the regular news cycle. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Unlike the other two nominated (which were mainly sourced from a missing person online DB), there are sources for this one - including LASTING (e.g. his declared death in 2015). Note that sourcing here is complicated by an EU privacy removal in Google which may hinder BEFORE in some locations (or even search histories - seems that google will surmise you're in the EU if you search includes EU terms and your location is not ascertained by other means). Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I added some sources to the article (as it was at the time of nom - sourcing was not great to say the least) - seems this is famous in Spain. However someone with better Spanish than I and better Spanish media knowledge will probably do a better job. Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being verifiable does not guarantee notability. You are confusing the meaning of WP:LASTING which calls for historical significance. What is so important about declaring him dead in 2015, in respect to history? That is a common eventual occurrence in missing persons cases when the person stays...well, missing. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note my weak vote here. This is one of the most notable Spanish missing persons. He also received coverage in the interim between 1987 and his declared death in 2015, as well as after. Criteria for GNG is coverage by RS, and not failing NOT. The man who farts the loudest might meet GNG, as do many celebs... Despite having little historical significance. Their inclusion is useful if someone looks them up. Editor opinion has little to do with GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG was not my rationale. NOT is a specific exception to it. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not routine news covered by NOTNEWS. Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person disappears; police investigate but cannot uncover any legitimate leads; said person is later declared dead. Seems rather routine and the sourcing advocates to that. How are your missing persons cases typically covered?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing people is not usually (outside of periods like the Argentinian junta) routine news reporting. The reporting on this case, which began with him missing, initial leads in Spain subsequent investigation in Portugal, of family, of a Swiss suspect, multiple intervening reports through the years, listing him among the topN (10) disappeared, and subsequent death declaration 29 years later (inheritance), and more reporting after that is not routine even for the non routine missing person coverage. And frankly if I was able to find these sources with broken Spanish and without archive access to Spanish sources (important for this timeframe - at least the 80s), there is much more than this. Most missing person reports do not lead to news coverage - at most a local notice aroud the disappearance and nothing further. Notable missing persons (in this probably since he was child hoghly gifted painter) - generate in depth, ongoing, national level coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill disappearance of a person, nothing to make this case notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per nom and JPL.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:17, 30 September 2017 (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.