Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Joanna Yeates

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 Keep While AfD is not a vote, the question of whether a recent event (in this case December 17) is going to prove to be notable (in other words, whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS to WP:EVENT) truly is a case where everyone's prediction is an educated guess. In this case, support for a keep is 2-1 that it is likely to survive the test of time, which may or may not prove the case. If this doesn't bear out in the next few months, a renomination will be appropriate. Mandsford 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanna Yeates[edit]

formerly "Disappearance of Joanna Yeates"


Disappearance of Joanna Yeates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disappearance (and eventual death) of someone who isn't notable in the slightest, and while the case is tragic it's in no way worth an article; it's passing news, and WP:NOTNEWS pretty much writes that off.  ƒox  21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - meets notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable sources. Also there is no reason what so ever to delete this article at this present time anyway. Seems like some people are in a delete frenzy.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't preculde having articles about things in the news, it simply states that we should consider the enduring notability of the event and that routine news items such as announcements, sports, or celebrities might not be appropriate. This event has received widespread and significant coverage in reliable sources, and I believe it is readily apparent that the event will not simply be transiently of note, but like other similar high-profile events such as the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence will be enduring notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Too many deletaholics desperate for something to keep them occupied. This event is entirely notable, and has recieved widespread, considerable attention nationwide for many days. If you lot at AfD want something worthwhile to do, rather than sticking knives in everywhere, look at articles which really are pure journalism, such as this one. Orphan Wiki 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deletaholic" am I? Thanks. This is my first nomination at AfD in a good while.  狐 FOX  01:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Without taking a stance on the article one way or another, how about a dose of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Strange though this may seem to you, I am quite sure it is possible to disagree with you on the application of policies and guidelines without there being malice, vandalism or ennui involved.  Ravenswing  22:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes its better to not say anything, just a tip. Like in this case Ravenswing, I guess you mean well. But it comes out as you are providing reasons not to insult by insulting user Orphanwiki.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like "Strange though this may seem to you" is so unnecessary and definitly can only be a factor leading to a "wikipedia meta war" which is totally not the point of a Afd. I hope you see my point Ravenswing and take it a bit easier next time. As i said above, sometimes its better to not say anything at all. And in fact assume good faith.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, I don't see you chastising Orphan Wiki for his unnecessary hostile and uncivil remarks. In fact, I see "Some people never give up you know" cheerleading comments. Do you genuinely believe that sometimes it's better not to say anything at all and to assume good faith? Those don't apply, after all, solely to those with whom you disagree.  Ravenswing  04:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to assume good faith. And please dont take comments to personal. It could be a fact that Orphanwiki wasnt insulting anyone simply stating a true fact and I see it as a way for the other user to improve instead.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was insulting no one, merely making an observation. Orphan Wiki 19:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Missing white woman" syndrome is evidently a documented phenomenon that extends across multiple cases and has been remarked on by reliable sources. It's not one news incident. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else spotting the irony here? Orphan Wiki 22:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon is notable; that doesn't mean every missing white woman is independently notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According too?. On the other hand every white missing woman shouldnt be dismissed immediatly either.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS is a clumsy and vague policy, that needs refining, clarifying and making more sensible. The WikiPolice simply use it inaccurately when they're feeling a tad too powerful, taking the title too seriously in the process. Orphan Wiki 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, it's a policy whether you like it or not.  狐 FOX  01:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, maybe it'll be enduringly notable, but two days after it happened, we have no way of knowing. "Keep" votes that cite coverage in reliable sources don't understand what WP:NOTNEWS means. Delete without prejudice to re-creation if it remains notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And all the work people have spent on it will have to be done all over again? When there's no doubt it will HAVE to be re-created? Dear me... Orphan Wiki 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with Orphan Wiki, that reasoning seems weak why should we delete this article on the notion that "not knowing" if this article will be enduring notability. hmm.. if that is your point I would rather suggest to Keep the article and perhaps IF it is not notable in a few weeks time then put it up for deletion again. But I have no worries about this articles notability in the long run.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. As I say, deletaholics fed up of twiddling their thumbs. Orphan Wiki 22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people never give up you know:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rest easy, deleted content can be recovered. (I speak from experience - I only recently asked an admin if it was okay to re-create a deleted category and he, without prompting, restored the history and everything.) But I wouldn't be so sure that "it will HAVE to be re-created." Please familiarize yourself with WP:EVENT - "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why put it up for Afd so fast, if it is a criteria for inclusion that a article of this kind has a long lasting notability and coverage. We are currently having a Afd discussion at a time when we can only guess if this article will have just that. But however I have still every reason to believe that this article will stand the test of time. This Afd is becoming a guessing game were people on both Keep and Delete side will give arguments and wikipedia guidelines speaking for both sides of the story. Totally senseless. And pointless. And too suggest that we should delete this article only to restore it in a few days or week time if it should become notable (in rosceleses mind) I find not productive as I stated before:).--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument could be made for "why create this article in the first place" when we can only guess at whether or not it will be notable. ("A few days or week" won't establish lasting significance either.) Anyway, I've voted, I've linked to the relevant notability criteria which indicate that this is clearly not a notable incident at this stage, I'm out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be "out" here but you should know it clearly meets WP:N/CA, which is the more specific part of WP:EVENT you should have linked to. --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah lets end this its starting to look like a meta-debate of why create,not create etc etc... I could honestly say that I created this article because of interest for the subject. And further,by seeing the interest for this article by other users only establishes the fact that this article is notable. People should never be "afraid" of creating new articles on the ground that it will be deleted per some guideline or pre-made rules. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... but people should know that they just cannot create articles on whatever it comes to their mind, right? For a reason the guidelines exist. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But where does it state that articles on crimes/criminals are totally forbidden? Just asking?.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote earlier, users should make articles sutch as these or similar (providing their are sources for it and an actual event ofcourse, sutch as in this case) and then if someone feels they arent appropriate put them up for Afd and if they pass they pass and will be a part of the Wikipedia article-family. It is as simple as that.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per pointless reasons against deletion given on talk page. So what if it is on the headlines? So what if you don't like the policy? I don't think the disappeareance of a nobody should be on the encyclopedia, at least not until the complete case is known. Do we have an article on the recent Cecilia Julio Bolados murder and disappeareance? Or the massive killings by a psychopath in Alto Hospicio? Or the 1998 Jorge Matute Johns Case? No guys. Come on. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No but we have a whole lot of other Disappearance of, Death of Kidnapping of, articles. So to say that these kind of articles arent included in Wikipedia are false. Then if you feel like making a article on Cecilia Julio Bolados then its up to you but this one is about Joanna Yeates and no one else.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, learn to format your comments. Secondly, I am aware that there is a lot of other death of... series of articles, I never said it was false. I'm not against their existence either if the articles are well presented and contain definitive information, not just rumours as this one could have: murderer is not known, etc, etc. And for the Cecilia thingy, I'm not up to do anything about it. I'm not going to risk myself to have an article on AFD, where it will be definitely deleted per systemic bias et all, and... I don't have enough time to even respond you any further, so. this is my last comment here. All right. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we witheld from creating any article about an event until the event was totally over and "known", we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diego Grez, your argument seems to be spiteful - you think that an article on Disappearance of Cecilia Julio Bolados or on es:Caso Matute Johns, a notable Chilean murder investigation, would be deleted on English Wikipedia, so you want to delete this article. I am not so sure those articles would be deleted, though deletionists might try. Also, your position that we must never write an article on an event until all the facts are known is very strange and has no basis in policy. Fences&Windows 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right Fences. People shouldnt be told not to create articles on certain subjects. Especially when mentioning this particular event which has recieved wide media attention and notability. Seems like some people who preaches the wikipedia policys havent read trough the policys properly.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major case, more than 'routine' coverage. The case could have a major influence on people's perception of crime and investigation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First, using WP:NOTNEWS to have an argument/discussion in an AFD is very hard. I strongly recommend using WP:EVENT instead, since it goes into considerably greater detail. The key thing that I get out of the event notability guidelines is that many news sources reporting the same thing about an event does not lead it to be notable. It needs lasting effects, depth (not breadth) of coverage, scope, duration, or something else to distinguish it to be included in an encyclopedia, and not just in a news source. I don't see any of those things in this event, and I have no reason to think that any of them are particularly likely. gnfnrf (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote earlier, that is the problem with this Afd its all speculations if it/or if it not will be lasting in its effect in media. But at the end of the day it IS having an effect at this time in the media and that is why it should be kept. we can just say that "i dont believe" that this will be a news story in two weeks time. Speculations cant be the basis for deletion in a case like this article. sorry to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is also why this article should be kept, what if it has a lasting effect in media over time and we delete it by tomorrow for example then we have to make the article all over again. How effective is that. Not be drag on about it but speculations should not be brought in as a reason for deletion. If anything this article should stay on so that we can see if it endures time and its effects like Gnfnrf states in his reasons for deletion.Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out already, if the article is deleted and later should be recreated, any admin can access the history and provide it to any interested editor, so the argument that work will be wasted is invalid. As for speculation about the future notability of the subject, we are discussing the article now. If the subject will be shown to be notable in the future, then the article should be added to the encyclopedia in the future. And lastly "having an effect at this time" is not a criterion in WP:EVENT. In fact, it is specifically structured to reject that as an indicator of notability. gnfnrf (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"what if it has a lasting effect in media over time and we delete it by tomorrow for example then we have to make the article all over again" we cannot keep this article because it will be notable in future as per WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NOHARM and WP:EFFORT are also not reasons to keep. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N/CA is the specific part of WP:EVENT that deals with cases like this. It says: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The nutshell for Event says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." As this event meets that requirement as it has has attained significant national coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, and is currently the leading news item in the UK. SilkTork *YES! 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest BabbaQ refrain from responding excessively as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you by that implying that I can no¨t express my opinions just because I am of another opinion then you. Then you are wrong again, but I will assume good faith for your recommendation this time. Even though I will continue to express my point of view just as mutch as you do daily on different Afds and discussions. Its a kind of "Dont throw rocks in glass houses" kind of situation. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a major Murder case in UK. Its just not a disappearance case but a murder case and it has received a lot of media attention lately so keep.Vin99 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment I think a number of people here do not understand the meaning of "speedy" in front of deletion discussion opinions. Or, alternately, I don't. "Speedy keep" means "close this AfD as Keep regardless of any consensus because there is a fatal flaw in the process, such as a bad-faith nomination, the version of the article brought to AfD was vandalized, or something else that renders the process broken." If you mean, "I really think you should keep this", that is typically represented as "Strong Keep". Can someone confirm my assumptions in this matter? gnfnrf (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this does not qualify for speedy keep, WP:SK. many of those voting for speedy keep fail to address how this is just WP:RECENT media coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well the deleters fails completely to give a good reason for their opinions for deletion so.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, of course it's just WP:RECENT coverage, as the event has only recently happened. That is not an argument for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Delete proponents have just not advanced a reason for their stance with which you agree. That is not the same thing.  Ravenswing  22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are like attitudes, different.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gnfnrf good comments, WP:EVENT applies here. this happened recently so there is no surprise there is recent media coverage. if it gets coverage 6 months from now then it may qualify for an article. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N/CA is the specific part of WP:EVENT that deals with cases like this. It says: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The nutshell for Event says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." As this event meets that requirement as it has has attained significiant national coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, and is currently the leading news item in the UK. SilkTork *YES! 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So far it is not clear at all whether this case is going to have historic significance. Of course murder cases are in the news, as is the weather, the local soccer results, and a lot of other things that do not belong into an ecyclopedia. --Pgallert (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Weather and soccer events that become big enough to have press conferences would likely be sufficiently notable to have their own articles. KimChee (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note At this time the article was moved from Disappearance of Joanna Yeates to Murder of Joanna Yeates. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Now this has become a murder investigation it has achieved greater notability. However, we may have to look at it again in a few weeks as more information becomes available. If it turns out she knew her killer then it may not become a significant case in the long run, but if it turns out to be linked to other crimes (as mentioned in the article) then it will have significance and we'll probably end up merging the relevant information. Also, I know other stuff exists but I can think of other crimes which received much less attention and about which Wikipedia has articles. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Btw, I fixed the Joanna Yeates redirect. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good. Because when this Afd is closed and people might be searching for her name only I guess its good to find it immediatly. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive amounts of coverage well beyond anything WP:NOTNEWS covers (that's a prohibition of basing articles on routine coverage; wall-to-wall coverage of this disappearance and murder investigation are not "routine"). If you actually read WP:EVENT you'll find it advises against early deletion nominations, and points out that recent events are not automatically non-notable (that would be a perverse position). If the coverage dies away you can consider alternatives like a selective merge to List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom, but this mania for nominating high-profile investigations has to stop. It's ridiculous, you make Wikipedia a laughing stock by doing this. Fences&Windows 14:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most high-profile murders in the UK for many years, and in my view easily meets Wikipedia's notabily guidelines for events. The article in question has been improved dramatically since it was first nominated for deletion, and will continue to grow and develop. The Celestial City (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Good to see some sort of consensus after all.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been such cases before which have been noted by Wikipedia articles in the past, so why should this one be any different? This is quite a sad and shocking case and is worthy of such coverage and will most likely be a matter of which people may wish to refer to in the future. Threfore keep this article and keep adding detail to it to make it a very robust source of reference. Cexycy (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly more than routine coverage for anyone who's actually bothered to read WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are around a thousand homicides in England & Wales each year, with most barely making the local news, if at all, let alone being reported at a national level. The fact that this case is very much attracting the latter attention is proof enough of its notability. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I deliberately withheld my opinion to see how the case would unfold. It has since been reported that the investigation has become one of the largest in Bristol, so that is enough for me. KimChee (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is NOT NEWS - simples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.214.76 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, however 99% of Wikipedia articles are basaed on history, which is what this matter will become very shortly. Cexycy (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is more than simply news due to the amount of coverage this event and investigation has received. The Celestial City (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Wikipedia wasnt news at all then basically no articles would ever be expanded my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.71.115 (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says you! I suppose all murder articles here are pointless, as well as genicide and all other historic events? Cexycy (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain in what way you find this article "pointless"? The Celestial City (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. I love the thought that went into that carefully constructed entry. Orphan Wiki 23:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now We can revisit this in a few months to examine enduring notability WP:NOTNEWS is hard to judge at the moment of the NEWS. I suspect greater weight for WP:NOTNEWS aruements once coverage is slopps off The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And the fact that Yeates landlord has been arrested, Jeffries also made comments about the disappearance in the days before in a possible attempt to give false leads to the investigators makes this story special.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the several hundreds of other white missing womens on this Wikipedia.. Why shouldnt we include this particular one then?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Start nominating... Abductive (reasoning) 12:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For once we have a article which actually has recieved both the notability needed and the extensive news coverage needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Abductive (reasoning)
Daah.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make something notable or not, if it's made notable by excessive media reporting in comparison to other routine murders, then it's notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever its outcome I have a sense this case will probably stand the test of time, and will be revisited by various media from time to time (True Crimes and that sort of thing). Also very few similar cases in the UK appear to have generated a comparable level of coverage (not even those relating to Melanie Hall and Claudia Lawrence seem to have done so). The only one I can think of which was as widely reported is the disappearance and murder of Rachel McLean from 1991 which concerned an Oxford student who vanished and was later found to have been murdered. We may also need to consider the use of social media in this case. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though I think the deletionists are closer to the truth in this discussion, I have to admit that right now this case is on the front page of every British paper and therefore it's not at all impossible that it will become something that's more than just news. So, as Zhou Enlai might have said, it's too soon to say what the value of this article is. Let's keep it for now and discuss it again in a few months. Skarioffszky (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All I am personally questioning is why some users are so in a deletion frenzy they want it gone and no discussion o it. And if you bring it up then you are attacked. Anyway I say as most users here Keep it and re-evaluate the situation in a few months time if needed. But we shouldnt either say that its likely that it will be deleted in a few months time. Because it has already achieved alot of coverage and reached the standard of notability needed trough sources and the event which has surrounded the case. And the deletionists arent closer to the truth in this discussion all they point towards are different guidelines which can be twisted around in a number of ways. Anyway its a keeper for now and that is all that matters. As TheRtroGuy states "Also very few similar cases in the UK appear to have generated a comparable level of coverage".--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It's been quite a tragic death I know, and there are plenty of appropriate and relevant citations. Maybe that's why some people want this kept. But there is a reason why I'd prefer to delete it: It is a death of a non-notable person as per WP:NOTNEWS, and when I tried to create this article, it got prodded per WP:NOTNEWS and eventually got deleted. However, I'm absolutely sure that there is an article on Wikinews based on this. Minimac (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we should delete Joanna Yeates article on the ground that this article was deleted?.. or please correct me if im wrong?:). If a person who has died get national and even some international headline then isnt that so to speak above and beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Seems like a very narrow minded view (no insult intended). Cheers. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS clearly states that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. We cant be sure of that at this time. One thing we can be sure of is that Joanna Yeates story currently definitly is enduring both when it comes to coverage both for the person herself and the event surrounding her death.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That case [Alize Mirza] seems to have received far less coverage than the Yeates case. Consider, as someone above did, that there are something like 1,000 homicides in this country each year and most of them merit no more than a few paragraphs of news. The sheer amount of printed words on this one demonstrates its potential for having longevity, and high profile cases are often revisited later for the purposes of television documentaries, etc. I'm sorry your article got deleted, but thems the breaks as they say (I've certainly lost a few in my time). Myself, I did consider an article on the murder of Jacqueline Thomas, a notable case from the early 1960s in Birmingham which was only resolved a couple of years ago thanks to advances in DNA, but wasn't sure even that would have met the guidelines. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, comparing the two crime (Mirza and Yeates) articles are like comparing apples and oranges.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS no longer justifies the point; the case has became too well known. The fledgling article has expanded significantly and for the article to be deleted under these terms would be grossly unfair. As my aforemention points makes clear, the case has became to notable not for it to have an article. Besides, it's a flimsy point for deletion anyway: judging by this, no present event could ever have an article created on it, and the timespan between what is current and what is considered history is vague and up for personal debate. Unfortunately, the media cannot be stopped with regards to the classic "missing white woman syndrome", but whatever their motive to report on the case, it has now inevitably drifted too far into the public eye for it to be simply deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. Every day this debate last for, the case for keep becomes stronger, as it shows its endurability as a notable article. Patyo1994 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that even more people understand that this is a slam dunk Keep Afd no question about it, and I also think and agree that as time has gone by since December 27 when this Afd was initiated the case for Keep has grown stronger and stronger. Which also proves it will endure over time as it has basically already established itself as a "forever keep" article.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orphan Wiki. Easily enough sources to support this article. CPerked (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its time to close this discussion soon. Word!:)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is very good at covering this sort of event. Yes, there needs to be a judgement about when an event becomes significant enough to justify an article. Depth of significant coverage and reliable sources is seen as the main judgement used, and this has that. In essence, the Wikipedia community is not deciding what is notable, it is the wider community that makes that judgement. Our purpose is to summarise the knowledge that is out there. We don't select or reject it - we just cover it. SilkTork *YES! 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:EVENT has been cited a few times in this discussion, I have said in a couple of places: WP:N/CA is the specific part of WP:EVENT that deals with cases like this. It says: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The nutshell for Event says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." As this event meets that requirement as it has has attained significiant national coverage in reliable sources for an extended period of time, and is currently the leading news item in the UK. SilkTork *YES! 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The news coverage has been for about two weeks. How is that an extended period of time? gnfnrf (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's better than when the article was created, but it's still not in depth coverage and it's still way too soon to know whether this will have any long-term impact or effects - come back in 9 months and we'll have a much better idea of what it's long-term cultural impact might be. Two weeks is not nearly enough time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No this case has reached notability needed. I believe that it is more your personal believe that it hasnt than pure facts. Its on the main news on the UK every day. thousands of people disappear every year in the UK not everybody gets this amount of coverage. But I however agree with you that two weeks arent enough, this article should stay on Wikipedia for months before we can in good faith establish that this article has stood the test of time. Until then its all a discussion of pure speculations.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been sustained domestic and international coverage. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't blieve that such a duscussion is taking place, to be honest! This is quite clearly a notable matter and yet despite a very shocking and upsetting death which only was discovered a matter of days ago there are people here wishing to delete such an article and practically brush it away like it is nothing. It most certainly is NOT nothing! Cexycy (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its strange I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...In case you haven't noticed, it's an encyclopedia, not the Met's back catalogue of homicide cases.  狐 FOX  01:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so hostile, that hardly helps your cause. Trying to establish non-notability to a highly notable article...--BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That has to stand for you. I did not state in any way shape or form how the admin should do. And as the result was that the Afd should stay on for a few days more which I agreed on its hardly a matter of canvassing. Always assume good faith, though I could question you brought this up in good faith evne though I hope so ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There has been a lot of coverage of this, yes, but all that means is that it has a higher chance of becoming notable in the future than <insert other missing white woman here>, but that does not mean it is notable yet. As has been pointed out what is required is significant depth of coverage, and I'm just not seeing that, I'm just seeing lots of news organisations commenting on the latest press release (and most of this article is just synthesis of these reports). If people put as much effort into coverage of events like this on Wikinews, which is where this belongs, rather than trying to create encyclopaedia articles about them then both projects would benefit. Cases like the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the disappearance of Lord Lucan are examples of about where the threshold should be - "notability" and "newsworthiness" are very different concepts, Wikipedia deals with the former, news media deals with the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states that the coverage must be in-depth or signficant. Clearly, in-depth coverage such as this is something that takes time to emerge. We don't delete every article about a current event until in-depth coverage appears. That is not policy. Also, Wikinews is a different website and not relevant to this discussion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but Wikinews is the place where this article should be. Wikinews was created specifically for that reason, otherwise Wikipedia would be even more full of news articles, don't you think? Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but frankly Wikinews is a dead project. And this article has per fact reached notaiblity that is needed. Its a fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the risk of starting to sound boring, to my mind this case is now notable for three reasons. I've discussed two of them previously, but would just like to recap if you'll give me a few moments.
  1. The level of media coverage, though not unprecedented, is unusual.
  2. This is kind of an extention to the first point, but it is unusual for the Attorney General to make a public statement such as this one regarding how aspects of the case have been reported.
  3. This is a weaker reason than the first two, but nonetheless worth considering. The fact that various social media were used in the search for Yeates when she was a missing person gives added weight to the argument for notability.

There is also a fourth reason. Reported yesterday was the fact that police were investigating a similar crime from the 1970s for possible links. If a connection was established then that would obviously further strengthen the case for a keep. That's all I wanted to say really. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - long-term notability has not yet been established. A sad case, but there's nothing about it that makes it more significant than any other murder. Robofish (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete this now how can we then establish long term notability. It says itself to get to know this articles long tirm notability it needs to stay on for a couple of more months. Im questioning, what is the hurry?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL applies here, trying to argue for keep on the basis of future notability is not a good argument. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comparisons to the McCann case and others really are stretching reality indeed tbh. The national ongoing coverage of this case is down to one thing only - missing white woman syndrome, and like it or not, using that phenomenon as the bar for inclusion to an encyclopoedia would be like using in-depth coverage in Heat Magazine to define who and who was not a notable person. Being "one of the largest police investigations in Bristol in years" is as close as this article comes to asserting lasting notability, and that's pretty weak imho. Who remembers the last holder of this particular record for example? Do we have we an article on it? The coverage is not indepth as defined in EVENT. The AG commenting on it is pretty irrelevant to the notability of the case, although that should be noted somewhere else. The use of social media is about two years too late to even be remarkable. Police speculation about similarities to other cases is just that, speculation. Quality of the current article is also totally irrelevant, and it's not that great either - we really need to know her hobbies do we? It is overflowing with trivia and salacious detail which an encyclopoedia would never include. While Wikipedia does include breaking news, it is not a breaking news service. And when there is no other indication at all as to why it is being covered here, then yes, it very much is policy to not create the article unless or until it can demonstrate via it's content, that is has, or is likely to have, proper, lasting, notability, via actual sources. That can even be of the predictive kind, but this article doesn't even include that as yet. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To compare Madeleine McCann to this case is like comparing apples and oranges, its about two totally different kind of disappearances/murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think there's anything salacious in the article. Some of the stuff which appeared in the media yesterday could be labelled as such, but the article itself is fine in that sense. There's some trivia, such as her hobbies and interests, but that's not a problem in itself as the information can be removed if necessary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. I have no doubt that the use of social media is nothing new in such cases, but it's certainly the most high profile example in the UK. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple other examples of otherwise irrelevant news topics, murder investigations etc are recorded on wikipedia. I would not support the creation of these articles, but once created they have a presence that we should try to maintain through to a conclusion and/or actual establishment of notability etc we are not in a position to state if this is a Madeleine McCann or Rhys Jones equivalent case as yet. At the moment the article is cited, and maintained, so let it run its course. Lack of consensus here too. Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't keep something just because it might become notable in the future (because it just as easily might never be). Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that reasoning falls on itself as the case of Joanna Yeates IS notable now. Its not a question if it will become notable in the future.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall clarify - the article clearly meets notability now, and is experiencing a sustained media campaign and prominence. My comment was really targeted at the the argument that it wont meet notability in the longterm, this of course is something that we wont know until the longterm. Hence keep until such point as it can actually be assessed. Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But notability is not temporary. So if it's notable now, it's notable and shouldn't be deleted.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed notability is not temporary, but equally notability is not retroactive - if it's notable in future it is notable from them onwards, but it doesn't mean it was always notable. Because notability is not defined by the amount of coverage something gets, it has not been established that this case is notable now. The article is almost entirely trivia and synthesis of the extensive but shallow news coverage, and when you strip away all that you're left with something that's notable for the families involved, and notable news in the city of Bristol, and a single sentence example for the Missing white woman syndrome article. I'm presently about 20 miles away from Bristol, but even this close it's not even notable here - which should give you an indication of how notable it isn't for a global encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can all think of articles that in our opinion are full of trivia and a synthesis of shallow coverage, but our opinions are not important. Notabiltiy is about the extent of covergae, not the perceived quality of coverage. "Significant coverage" means sources address the subject "directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.. more than a trivial mention..". The sources here do deal with the subject in detail. It may not be the kind of detail you like, but it's sufficent detail to meet our guidelines for inclusion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pontificalibus, if "our opinions are not important", no articles would actually be removed from Wikipedia, don't you think? Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our opinions on the quality of an article have no bearing on whether the subject matter is notable or not.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to ask those voting for Delete, what is the great hurry with deleting this article? One of the reasons often brought up are that establishment of long standing notability has not been established. But the best and most effective way to see if this article will have a long-term notability and coverage would be to keep the article on for a couple of more months. If we delete it now it will be hard to establish any kind of that. As someone wrote, 2 weeks is hardly enough time to establish long term notability for a crime-article. Also I disagree with the statements that notability hasnt been established, because it has trough a high amount of coverage which goes beyond the normal stnadard for a missing/murdered person. This is my final statement in this Afd. Peace out.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we need this article around to know whether it is notable in future or not, then by definition it isn't notable. What determines notability isn't the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article, but significant coverage in reliable independent sources (per the WP:GNG). If that is present then we can use that to establish whether it's notable or not, so we don't need the article. If it isn't present then it isn't notable, so we don't need the article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria, most significantly "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" which I think it meets. WP:NOTNEWS means we won't have an article on a murder case like this one reported earlier today, but for a case that has achieved so much coverage, we should have an article. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To the people voting delete because of "missing white woman syndrome" and dismissing this as a non-notable event "because it's just news!" I'm sorry, but notability is defined SOLELY on the quality and breadth of relevant sources. This article has all of that and more. It seems people are arguing for deletion because they dislike the fact the media is reporting so widely on this event, which is something that should not influence its inclusion in Wikipedia. illspirit|talk 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm recommending to delete this because the only claim for inclusion that this has is that it is being widely reported by the news media. Being widely reported by the news media means something is newsworthy, it doesn't mean it's notable (some notable things are widely reported by the news media, some aren't. Some things that are widely reported by the news media are notable, some aren't). Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the extensive coverage the incident has received in reliable and verifiable sources extending over a period of time after the initial report. Alansohn (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfDs exist to generate views from a wide range of editors. they do not exist for one editor to dominate discussion and excessively respond. dominating discussion does not let others feel welcome to display a contrary viewpoint. this is one of the worst cases of WP:BLUDGEON I have ever seen. the user in question should be asked to refrain from responding any further in this AfD and that the AfD let it run its course. this user has excessively expressed their viewpoint. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore from WP:BLUDGEON:

When you dominate a conversation by having multiple talk entries and address every other person's opinion, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of fanboyism and reduces your credibility within the conversation. It is also very annoying and inconsiderate to others.

  • Keep It needs notability. Whilst I sympathise that this is just one of many, many, many murders, it has got the attention it has and it is a decently written article. I see no advantage from deletion.--EchetusXe 09:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please could you be clearer with what you mean - "it needs notability" would generally be a reason to delete an article rather than to keep it. Having a Wikipedia article requires the subject to already have notability, a Wikipedia article does not convey notability onto its subject. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - although not written very well, the first three words are explained thoroughly by the rest of the comment, and the header that is Keep. Orphan Wiki 14:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read the arguments here and find the keep arguments more convincing. WP:NOTNEWS lists examples like "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" as things not to be included in Wikipedia. I'd leave it for now: if it turns out that the story isn't as important in a few months, it can be deleted then. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument for "delete" here seems to confuse NOTNEWS with being wilfully slow on the uptake just for the sake of it. Anything that has filled the front pages of the UK tabloids for a week is notable for our purposes. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shane Warne's alleged affair with Liz Hurley also filled with tabloids. maybe a Warne Hurley affair article is in order. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not sure what the comments about Gordon Brown's favourite cookie and Shane Warne's alleged affair with Liz Hurley are supposed to prove, because the article being discussed here is not about a "favourite cookie" news story or a media circus surrounding a celebrity affair. Each new article is evaluated on its own merits. In any event, in the cookie and affair examples, the people concerned do have wikipedia articles and a small mention of these events could potentially be added to those articles, with references. Format (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason, seemingly in policy or otherwise, not to keep this. The reasons for deleting it appear to often be that she's an "abosolute nobody". To me that says more about the people demanding deleting the article than it does about wiki policy. She may not have been in the public view before these events (that doesn't make her a nobody rather it makes her not previously notable by wiki policy) however she is now very much in the public eye and fully notable. Danno81 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article. There is no apparent reason for not keeping this article. High number of Keep votes now to.--83.254.191.130 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)— 83.254.191.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Please could you expand on why you believe that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article? There are many editors in good standing giving reasoned arguments both for and against this article, so a WP:SNOW close would be very inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It has some lasting effects beyond the crime. For example, "Operation Braid", has become one of the largest police investigations in Bristol" which is clearly a historical point. So, it complies with WP:NOTNEWS. Soewinhan (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not news. This case has nothing out of the ordinary about it. News organisations report on all murders - if they didn't, we'd life in a very poor world. If this stays, then so could every single murder investigation however small or large. Brad78 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does have notable lasting effects and it is not a simple investigation. The crime breaks records with 70 detectives and civilian staff under the direction of Detective Chief Inspector. And one of the largest publicized crime in UK. Soewinhan (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:EVENT speaks of enduring notability and lasting effect, as opposed to transient coverage at a news story. It's always difficult to make that judgment after a recent event. But there's no realistic suggestion that this event will have enduring notability, so the article is premature and should be deleted until notability can subsequently be demonstrated to be enduring. "A burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". At the moment, a burst or spike in news coverage is all that this appears to be. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per above.Soewinhan (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whats WRONG with PEOPLE???? Why not delete entire WIKIPEDIA. Just delete everything and this CRAZY Delete-o-mania will stop. That said this murder case had international coverage so strong keep.Vin99 (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point me out at least one non-UK link/news article about Yeates to prove it "has received international coverage"? Well, to be honest, it proves nothing, that doesn't buy notability! Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I myself watched it in news in my country then came online to see page up for deletion and I lives 20 countries away from UK. Just go and google the case and see the coverage it has received.Vin99 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a typical annual figure for murders in the UK is 1,201 (and 197,333 worldwide). There is nothing about this one that separates it from the others, other than that it is prominent in the news.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, as per the previously mentioned WP:BLUDGEON, can certain users stop responding to so many people that hold the opposite view to you? Several people from both sides of the debate (you know who you are and as your signature appears after each comment, so does everyone else) feel the need to keep in check every one else who hold the opposite opinion on this article. This discussion does not need nurse maiding by the few. Let others speak their minds without the need to feel like you have to correct their point of view! Danno81 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aren't we forgetting that Wikipedia has similar pages, such as the one about Suzy Lamplugh and many others involving people who have gone missing, whether murdered or missing forever? TurboForce (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at this in terms of some of the points suggested by WP:EVENT as helping to establish notability. In-depth coverage: definitely, no problems there. Widespread and/or international coverage: covered in a multitude of national sources and at least two international ones, which should be enough. Duration of coverage: could be argued either way. After only two weeks it cant't be proven that the event will be covered for a long time to come, so there are possible WP:CRYSTAL issues; however, the coverage so far has been non-stop and shows no signs of abating. Geographical scope: although this is effectively a local story and direct effects are largely confined to Bristol, the Facebook campaign suggests a possible significant impact over a widespread societal group. Again, could be argued either way. Lasting effects: probably not yet. Closest at present seems to be a claim that her landlord was seeking damages for wrongful arrest, and possibly the criticism of media coverage. Specific guidelines of crimes: WP:N/CA says that As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. All of which is a very long way of saying weak keep. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (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_Joanna_Yeates&oldid=1140104048"