Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sheila Fox

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 as this is convincing enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Sheila Fox[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Especially old news. TheLongTone (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Something that still makes the BBC over sixty years after it happened is not an ordinary news story.:I will further note that I ASKED AN ADMIN BEFORE CREATING IT and they said it was OK. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Benjamin Austin: - I'm not actually an admin. I have rollback, reviewer and autopatrolled rights, but I am not that high up!--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what appears on the news is of trivial and ephemeral interest.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I further not that despite there being two BBC refs they are both to the same story. This is a routine cold case investigation; the police do like to close files.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability, the thing is basically a headline. Civilian crime during WWII is an interesting subject, I will give you that. And contrary to popular belief, admins aren't automatically bestowed with infallible opinions on notability, nor is their endorsement a free pass. ~~jk admins i luv u pls don't ban me~~ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

she's also mentioned in this book - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lXqIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88&dq=%22sheila+fox%22+1944&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUt9LTmc3LAhXoL6YKHdk0B5sQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22sheila%20fox%22%201944&f=false Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By some unfortunate stroke of luck it's not allowing me to see the content on that page. To what degree is she mentioned? It appears to be a compendium of murder cases, so I don't feel as though it really lends the case notability. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with such old cases is that abduction and murder of a child now goes straight to the national media as opposed to being reported only locally in the local paper, and only hitting the national media if the case proved unusual, intriguing or horrifying. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was just created and still requires expansion. The deletion nomination was far too hasty.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 15:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has now been significantly expanded.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 17:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to weak Keep. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more morbid fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was way too hasty and your comments smack of "because I haven't heard of it, it's not notable!" this is why Wikipedia has more information on Star Wars games than African presidents. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been improved a lot. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article may have gained weight but this does not affect the primatry issue; it fails WP:CRIME. No significant ongoing coverage; there is simply some recen coverage because the police dug a hole. As for Paul Benjamin Austin's snarky comment, I fail to see what it has to do with this instance of morbid fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see you try your antics at Beaumont children disappearance and Disappearance of Eloise Worledge Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Case is still making the news 60 years after the fact, clearly long-term notable. Notability established through multiple major news outlets. Scr★pIron^IV 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it's been expanded this seems clearly notable. valereee (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability clearly established by at least 2-3 book sources discussing the case and continuing major newspaper coverage up into the 2010s. According to sources this is one of Britain's longest unsolved disappearances. I can't imagine how anyone could think it was not notable or dismiss it as "old news" (once notability was established, it doesn't go away because time passed). TheBlinkster (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (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.