Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire Meissmer disappearance

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire Meissmer disappearance

A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case [1] gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? FrozenPurpleCube 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly what you are saying about me above is a complete misrepresentation and a borderline personal attack - I ask that you change it. I can't see a particularly decent reason for your nomination other than "not particularly remarkable", which isn't right. The article details something that was massive across the news, not just tabloids. It was a massive missing-person operation and is a significant event. violet/riga (t) 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - There is just no historic notability. While its sad, I'm strongly opposed to making articles every time a child goes missing. Corpx 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A widely-publicised and still web-present case related to a significant event. This wasn't just any missing child. Cite WP:NOT#PAPER if you want to use that policy. violet/riga (t) 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP is not paper, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Where is the historical notability to this? Corpx 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid question, but I'd say it's kind of hard to be sure since something only happened a few years ago. However, it is more than a few months after it happening. FrozenPurpleCube 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is going to sound insensitive and I really don't mean it to be, but kids go missing all the time and there will be a big search for the missing kid and much publicity will be given to the situation in the hope that somebody might be able to help. As I said below, the case of Amber Hagerman clearly shows historical notability (at least to me) because her disappearance was instrumental in creating the Amber Alert system. How is this kid disappearing any different than any of the other kids that have gone missing? Corpx 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but there are also problems with removing information because it hasn't had time to be long-term importance. If this were mere weeks afterwards, your argument might have more merit to me, but some of the sources are more recent. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than updates to the story, I dont think there's been any coverage. A search on google news archives only pulls up stuff from 2005 Corpx 03:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Why are you making it so personal anyways? --MichaelLinnear 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm inclined to consider this sufficiently referenced (two bad external links do not negate three proper news references, even if not inline). As news it was international and even involved legal proceedings so it wasn't trivial. I would consider this one of the more notable -- the word "victims" seems problematic -- aftermath stories from the tsunami, no matter how you believe it turned out. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic and highly invasive for the famiy of the victim. We are here to write an encyclopedia not cause trouble or troll, SqueakBox 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how using information reported in several published sources of wide reach is highly invasive to this family, or how it causes trouble or trolls by having it? FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. We are wikipedia. Journalists are trained not to commit libel etc. As wikipedia we have to greater responsibility, being an encyclopedia, and one that anyone can edit, and I fail to see how this improves the encyclopedia and if she were my kid I would be outraged at wikipedia doing this. Lets grow up as an encyclopedia, as Doc Glasgow said recently, SqueakBox 02:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much of an explanation there. Your personal outrage doesn't mean much, you aren't the parents of the child involved. Perhaps they feel differently. They did participate in publicizing this issue, and for what I'd consider a good reason. More publicity means more of a chance the child will be found. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We arent here to find lost kids. We dont know what the parents would think so lets not assume they think we are the best thing since sliced bread or even something positive. My outrage? I wasnt aware of expressing that, please dont assume, I amtrying to protect the project not indulging in emotion, SqueakBox 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't about finding the kid. It's about the effort to find the kid. Slight different. And um, you said "if she were my kid I would be outraged at wikipedia doing this." which quite clearly IS an expression of how you would feel on this subject. So don't tell me not to assume things when you state them right out. I'll take you at your word. You said you'd be outraged. I don't feel your emotional reaction is relevant, as someone else may have a different reaction. FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive for the family? The same family that made their own website about the girl, are very happy for a memorial site to be made, and spent months publicising the event? violet/riga (t) 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above & per nom. Eusebeus 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion, given the length of time it was in the public eye and the resulting news coverage. Viridae ^Talk 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability at the time isn't the question, but it is whether there is historic notability to this. Unlike Amber Hagerman, I dont think there is a historic notability to this. Corpx 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is a question. If it was highly notable at the time it can still be covered. violet/riga (t) 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS says "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and event" Corpx 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability over several years is in my opinion long enough for inclusion. Viridae ^Talk 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's not established either. All the articles on that page are from 2005. Corpx 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a mere current event, solidly referenced, doesn't remotely meet our own definition of tabloid, and is hardly invasive when the parents have gone to so much trouble to publicize this. I can easily imagine the parents registering here to post "keep" votes and having WP:ILIKEIT or WP:COI cited at them. We therefore can't use their hypothetical and highly improbable opposition (invasive?!?) to such an article as a reason to delete. --DeLarge 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references establish notability. Everyking 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Don't see any long-term notability. --MediaMangler 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube, this article does in fact satisfy notability guidelines and is not at all handled in a tabloid-like fashion. Burntsauce 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nomination by editor with a grudge. Vodak 17:28, 26 July 2007 (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.