Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Kimberly McAndrew

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 deletion. Most of the commenters are unconvinced that the investigation of the disappearance of McAndrew is a notable subject. Failing to establish a convincing case for EFFECT, the coverage of this missing person falls under the purview of BLP1E. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Kimberly McAndrew[edit]

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

This article has been deleted at least 5 times under other names, and was protected against creation previously. (Under name of Kimberly Ann McAndrew) No evidence of notability. Standard missing person case, with the only references being typical news report, standard police notices, and one cop's reminisces of the case. All standard fare for any of the hundreds of thousands of missing people around the world. The original editor has repeatedly created this, and added it (sometimes anonymously) to lists of missing people or those with the same first/family name.--Dmol (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not that the conduct of the editor is really relevant but this wasn't created 5 times and deleted as the result of an AFD. It was deleted 5 times in only 3 days, all of them speedy deletion and three of those were A7. It's pretty clear that the creator was new and was struggling to work out what he had to do to create and properly source the article. He wasn't trying to spam WP - he was legitimately trying (and failing) to create an article in good faith. When he couldn't work it out, he asked me (we had worked together on another article). He's quite obviously new and has sought the assistance of fellow editors. Perhaps having a chat to him about your concerns or at least tagging the article and giving him a chance to respond would have been a more reasonable course of action.

On the article itself - it was originally created as an article about the person (the editor unaware of WP:BLP1E and the like - the full discussion is on his talk page). I moved it and then cleaned it up a bit. I was under the impression that both significant coverage and effect had been established; the sources substantiating an EFFECT were removed when the nom listed this for deletion. I don't think this is a particularly good faith nomination and it strikes me as at least a little bit bitey. Stalwart111 00:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nom says, a standard missing person case. Unfortunately, "all standard fare" is indeed the expression to use here. As for being bitey, it may be helpful to also look at the talk page history of the article creator, who really seems to have issues with following WPs policies and guidelines. (Not that this is relevant here, all an AfD needs to be concerned about is notability). --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did and sought assistance, including from editors like me who had "voted against" his article at the AFD you started. That's the sort of thing we should be encouraging. But anyway, notability... Stalwart111 12:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, I'll be honest, I'm not sure whether hundreds of mistaken sightings is irregular or not, nor whether the establishment of a special task force is more than would ordinarily be established in such cases. What I think makes it unusual is that it remains an active and open case and police from the task force have searched specific properties as recently as this year. I suppose that's their job if they have new information but it seems like a long time to maintain an active investigation. The available sources reflect that - from news sources then and now through to television specials. Stalwart111 12:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than routine local media coverage to make a missing persons case notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia — and that hasn't been established here, with only one non-local source and several invalid primary sources (including, of all things, her father's obituary on the website of the funeral home that held his funeral, which is an absolutely unacceptable source no matter how you slice it.) Delete; if lasting significance is later established, then an article can certainly be recreated at that time, but as of right now what's written here fails to demonstrate any. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage of, what is unfortunately, far to routine type of disappearance, news yes, not however suitable encyclopaedic content. Fails WP:NOTNEWS without demonstrated lasting significance. LGA _talk^edits 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is far from a routine missing person case and has been covered by several NATIONAL media outlets in magazines and TV not just a local story.(CTV News August 12, 2009, Reader Digest April 2004, National, Global-2006-10-02) Even today when media talks about missing people her name is featured even 20 years later. [[1]]Her story and case have become part of our culture and a story that is retold endlessly and is part of our Canadian history. This story fits with other missing person bios listed in List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously that have less references and many without any articles other then references being typical news report, standard police notices.For example: Tara_Calico Disappearance_of_Fryderyk_Frontier Kirsa_Jensen_case..if you go through the list you will see many bios of General Missing Persons which are not as famous as Kimberley. I have spent a lot of time researching and reading missing person bios to make sure this fits in Wikipedia, but it seems my efforts have made me a target for some editors.jbignell (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jbignell, if you would spend half the time you devote to wailing about editors "targeting" you to familiarizing yourself with the way things are being done here, your life would get a whole lot easier. Face it, there's a community here and there are certain policies, guidelines, and standards that we have to follow. We may not like on or another of those policies and disagree with them, but we have to abide by them anyway. If you want to change the whole WP culture single-handedly, you'll probably end up fighting windmills... --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way I see it, she "almost" meets notability standards a few times when you read the newspaper stories and go through the links.Bluenoser78 (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage online to establish this articles importance.Novadelta (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUSPECTED SOCKPUPPETS. Users Bluenoser78 and Novadelta are both new accounts that have been set up only to support the keep vote on this article. IP address 24.224.137.164 (Bluenoser78) also has the same type of edit history as user Jbignell regarding ambulance services in Canada.--Dmol (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- IP address 24.224.137.164 - is the host server of [| EMC] which is owned by the Nova Scotia ambulance service, basically the paramedic station computers. I sent out an email to my peers and asked them if this article was important and significant and how to set up a log in. These two accounts are part of a team of research paramedics that will be writing and researching EMS articles this fall at the Nova Scotia Archive, in September we hope to have ten accounts under that IP address. I wish you could spend as much time helping better the article as you do in finding faults in my efforts.jbignell (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree something needs to be looked into here. See SPI. LGA _talk^edits 09:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one respond to this? Do I delete them? Do I ask them to sign up at home and not at work? I really wish this page focused on the article and not the goal of attacking me! bitey jbignell (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a "vote"; you can't "game" the system by getting other people who haven't ever contributed to Wikipedia before to come say keep. Rather, it's a consensus discussion of established users with reputations as regular contributors, who have more familiarity with Wikipedia's actual policies and procedures and with the kinds of things that we typically include or exclude. The input of outsiders can actually be entirely excluded in the process of summing up the final consensus at closure, if they don't actually add anything useful to the discussion besides "keep because I said so" — a discussion with 98 "keeps" and just two "deletes" can, for example, be closed as a delete consensus if the keeps are all coming from new SPA accounts and the deletes both come from established users who are citing real policy.

What you can do if you really want to save the article is to (a) read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before you try using that argument again, (b) start citing more substantive, policy-based reasons why it might be keepable, and/or (c) improve its sourcing (the funeral home announcement really, truly has to go, for starters) to make its notability more readily apparent (i.e. a broader array of national or international coverage.) Getting coworkers who aren't otherwise Wikipedia contributors to come be "strength in numbers" backup, however, really isn't on your list of options. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My goal wasn't to create strength and stack the odds, but to notify others of ongoing discussions, with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation.WP:CANVAS jbignell (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been your goal, but it's not what your invitees actually did. We can't read your mind as to the nobility of your intentions — we can only judge these things on the basis of what actually happens when your invitees show up, and what actually happened was SPA sockpuppetry by people who added nothing to the discussion but "keep because I said so". Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom - no indication that this is anything other than a standard missing person case. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a non-standard missing person case. When I read all missing person cases they all seem standard? What makes Kimberley different is WP:LASTING 20 years later we are still talking about her in the press. WP:EFFECT Her case was a catalyst for the Halifax police department to set up a major crime unit and a special group to deal with missing persons. WP:INDEPH This story has had In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, her case has featured length articles in major news magazines, TV and Books. (Readers Digest, CTV National, The Toronto Star, etc.) Her story has been talked about whenever someone goes missing, WP:PERSISTENCEthe press use her case to see if currently public reaction is the same and are police doing what needs to be done. This article isn't about Kimberley it's about her disappearance and the lasting effect it has had on the region.jbignell (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, also, having read the page, I would say it's also poorly written for an encyclopedia. For example, the "Disappearance" section reads like the intro to a television show about it - and is certainly not encyclopedic language. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no indication of this being a notable event outside the local area, also some sections are COPYVIO. As for Jbignell read WP:OTHERSTUFF as pointed above. Caffeyw (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. My condolences to her family and friends, but WP is not a true crime catalog of perps and victims... Carrite (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (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.