Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Von Emster case

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. ✗plicit 03:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Von Emster case

[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)

There is some coverage, but nothing substantial. The case was covered by the popular BuzzFeed Unsolved series, which explains the 1000+ monthly pageviews. Does it clear the notability bar for events? Mooonswimmer 03:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible shark attack victim isn't notable. The large part of the article is unsourced and appears to question the validity of the autopsy; appears to be some sort of a "protest" for the case to be re-opened? I find nothing confirming these allegations; who knows. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:EVENT guideline, there is insufficient support for a WP:LASTING effect with WP:BUZZFEED sensationalism in 2017, a brief mention in 65 years of San Diego shark encounters (San Diego Tribune, 2016), two blogs, and a spreadsheet from sharkattackfile.net. The WP:GEOSCOPE of one tabloid-style source is not sufficient to support notability, and my search has not found better sources. The WP:DEPTH of coverage is also limited to Buzzfeed's sensationalized speculation, and the Tribune mention appears to be within this section of the guideline's note that Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. Beyond these two sources, there does not appear to be WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and neither of these sources are strong support for event notability. There also does not appear to be WP:DIVERSE independent and reliable coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 20:03, 29 October 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.