Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Stevik (3rd nomination)

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. I am closing it as No Consensus as (a) I consider a number of the Delete arguments (notabilty Kingturtle and DGG) to be stronger than those for Keep, (b) many of the Keep votes are verging on WP:ITSNOTABLE, and (c) I am suspicious about a couple of the Delete votes, both of which are SPAs on this subject. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Stevik[edit]

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

Third nomination, early relisting permitted by DRV. The subject has had no independent coverage in reliable sources. The deceased subject is featured only in databases of deceased subjects. Complete notability failure, fails WP:N, WP:BIO (WP:CRIME). - hahnch e n 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete--The only coverage I could find in a reliable source was [1]. This, even when taking into account the databases that make up all 4 of the article's current sources, does not appear to be enough to establish notability. Keep rationales offered in previous two AFDs were not compelling at all. Everymorning talk 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, the subject meets criteria per ONEEVENT. As for WP:Crime, the event is still notable because it is unusual, as the victim remains unidentified for over a decade. See arguments for the past unanimously kept AFDs: [2] and [3]. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On 3/6/15 Lyle was on the front of Reddit's /r/Wikipedia page at #14. Sites like Reddit & Wiki could play a huge role in helping to solve our greatest national disaster of inidentified persons like Lyle. Greensville County John Doe AKA Grateful Dead Fan; may soon be identified due to Imgur & Reddit. A gal named greymetal uploaded GDFs flier to Imgur & also Reddit when the right people saw it. GDF has been on many sites; yet none of them were successful in helping to identify him. The same could be true of Wiki --AdvocateNJ (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my prev !vote - Still passes ONEEVENT & CRIME & GNG, The constant renominations are also disruptive. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone care to explain how it passes these guidelines? It doesn't meet GNG because of the paucity of reliable source coverage. Saying something is "unusual" and that this confers notability, without sources that say the same, is WP:OR. The keep arguments at this AFD and both the previous ones basically amount to "WP:ITSNOTABLE" without specifying what sources make him notable. For instance, one voter said that sources indicate national attention without specifying which sources indicated such attention. Everymorning talk 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Besides the reasons given above and in the two previous lopsided AfD discussions, the unsolved nature of this case adds to its notability. What's the point of re-nominating if you're only going to repeat the same failed arguments from the previous two AfDs? That's what WP:SNOW is saying not to do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dennis Bratland: There is a reason an early renomination was allowed. No matter how notable Wikipedians like yourself assert the case to be, you have no reliable sources. - hahnchen 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes the cited sources unreliable? Your complaint against them seems to be that they're not news media. So what? The Grays Harbor coroner's office and sheriff's office are reliable. The identifyus.org site is part of the US DOJ. How is that unreliable? The http://missingyou7.blogspot.com site doesn't add anything, but the others are trustworthy enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what? So WP:OR, or more specifically WP:PRIMARY. - hahnch e n 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources not only need to be reliable, they also need to be notable. My band might get all sorts of press and awards from some underground zines and my local paper, but they are not notable sources. missingyou7.blogspot.com, doenetwork.org are *not* notable whatsoever. Sources not only need to be reliable, but they also need to be secondary. The Grays Harbor coroner's office and sheriff's office are primary sources. co.grays-harbor.wa.us and dentifyus.org are *not* valid sources. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was ALREADY discussed and already determined that Lyle Stevik fits Wikipedia's criteria, due to the circumstances surrounding this case. For those who are wondering about Lyle's media coverage - yes, he has been covered a few small times in passing and mentioned extensively in a book. -- Transylvanian Thunderbolt (talk) 2:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The only reason both deletion discussions came up with the same answer is because the author pinged every keep !voter. The only new comment from the second nomination came from a single purpose account. Let me try the ping, @DGG:, @Stifle:, @S Marshall:, @Kingturtle:, I'd welcome your opinion. - hahnch e n 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahnchen: Isn't the reason you reopened the debate/were granted permission to do so because you wanted different opinions? Since the debate reopened I haven't asked anyone to come forward - those who returned came on their own, most likely since they watch the page. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff here. Hahnchen, I really wasn't planning to get involved here, but I felt your complaint about canvassing at DRV at least justified reconsidering. For you to then go and similarly canvass for delete !voters in the reopened AfD (and honestly I think you could have given GW a bit more time to look for some sources (of which more below)) is nothing short of disingenuous and two-faced. Since I took your DRV nomination seriously (even though I did !vote endorse) only because of this canvassing issue I feel personally played. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without pinging other users, this discussion would have had the same paucity of critical thought as the previous nominations. And then the next time it gets nominated, you'd have the same "procedural keep" responses just going by trust that the other AFDs were competent. - hahnch e n 14:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter why you pinged other users; it is still canvassing unless you pinged all the interested parties regardless of how you believed they were likely to !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnchen, this action completely defeats the purpose of reopening the debate. If you want to prove the others wrong, you should use a different strategy than the opposing viewpoint.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 16:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it passes WP:N means nothing. Showing that it passes WP:N by means of reliable sources would be convincing, but that hasn't happened. The problem here is that the Coroner's website, findagrave.com, the unidentified persons database and the Doe Network are primary sources, usable to build articles in conjunction with secondary sources, but of no value towards the WP:GNG without those secondary sources; and they all repeat the same photos and provide the same information. And the fourth source is a blog. Incidentally, the fact that the article includes a "signature" from someone known to be operating under a pseudonym is a symptom of the horrible lack of encyclopaedic judgment that's been shown in drafting this "article".—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Dennis Bratland did further up in the post on his opinion on the sources.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 17:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said they were trustworthy, and I'm sure he's right about that. I wouldn't doubt a coroner's website. But my comment isn't about trustworthiness, is it?—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the NamUs and coroner websites could be primary and there are uses of secondary sources, such as the blog and a book mentioned above. They've given their own interpretations on the subject. I can see the issue with the blog not being reliable, yet the book would be considered to be one. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the book looks like a tolerable secondary source. The general notability guideline requires secondary sources, plural ---- we're still short one. Do you intend to reply to every single "delete" !vote?—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why an editor with something on point to say isn't free to reply as much as they wish to whomever they wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dennis; I wish the people who keep pulling out WP:BLUDGEON to keep people from saying things they don't want to hear would keep that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather unfair accusation, Daniel. Far from "not wanting to hear", I've acknowledged and engaged with everything said to me during this discussion. I'm simply noting how many edits to this discussion and other previous ones have been made by the same people. I feel that on balance, the thing that people "don't want to hear" is that this article needs secondary sources if it's to survive.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No different from any other unidentified person, No evidence of a crime. No evidence of anything at all. No news stories. Primary sources only, and no different from any other person mentioned in them. I'm willing to include an article despite failing WP:GNG when there's a good reason for inclusion in an encycopedia , but here there is no reason for inclusion. The reason the debate was relisted so soon was because the original listing was totally irrational. It was argued at previous AfDs that "the case is unusual, as the victim is unidentified, ", but there is no evidence or reason to think that a suicide by an unknown person is at all unusual. It was argued at previous AfDs that " this article serves as importance in helping to secure an identification." but that is totally unrelated to the function of an encycopedia. It might be the the function of news media, except no news media seem to have thought so in this case. If WP were paper, we'd be stuck with this. But we're not paper. We can correct our mistakes. It does not pass GNG because there are no reliable secondary sources. (The very book being claimed as a source includes this in a very minor way; even if it were to be taken as significant coverage, there's a reason why GNG says sources in the plural--to deal with erratic mentions suchas this.) It does not pass ONEVENT because there is no continuing coverage. It does not pass CRIME because even if suicide is considered a crime, it is a purely routine one. If I had to construct an example of what does not belong in WP, this would be a model. We have problems deciding when something intrinsically unimportant gets major press coverage for a long time; we have problems when something intrinsically very important gets no press or other RS coverage;. We shoulkd not have problems when something intrinsically unimportant gets no RS coverage.

There may however after all be a place for this in WP, as the most foolish article to have ever been on DYK outside of April Fools Day. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the argument of the case being no different from other unidentified body cases, there is plenty that makes it unique. Few are witnessed to seen alive, use an alias and leave a trail of clues, such as records from traveling around other places in the country. Suicide is a routine crime, yet the aspect that the victim is unidentified makes it unusual. It doesn't say in the guidelines if the cause of death was to be unusual. Suicide occurs occasionally with UID cases, yet most die from murder or undetermined causes. Still notable, in my eyes.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources, there is always the option to tag the article with a RefImprove tag or some sort. Plenty of articles with the same predicament aren't deleted and get tagged as such.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The book source IMO pushes it just past the threshold. It needs to be used in the article. As I have said I believe this is notable because, unlike so many other unidentified decedents, this one used a pseudonym (I think there is one other such case—Edna Buchanan mentions in her book The Corpse Had a Familiar Face another suicide who checked into a Miami hotel under a name that later seemed to have been purposely chosen, but that one hasn't gotten any coverage beyond that. I agree it would be nice if we had an RS pointing that out, but even without it the reader can probably draw the conclusion on their own. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - still passes ONEEVENT & CRIME and GNG. These kind of opinionated disruptive noms fills no other purpose than disruption of everyones time. Now when this third AfD will close as Keep, could please the involved users that puts this article up for deletion please get the message. A fourth nom will most likely at this time end in the same result. It passes by the fact that it is plenty of sources and coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm not convinced that a small mention in what looks like a pulpy true crime text is really that notable. Neither am I convinced that Stevik deciding to use a pseudonym before taking their own life is particularly notable. Dolescum (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stevik has gotten coverage from two news articles (both of which were published half a decade after his death) and a book. While the sourcing isn't the strongest, I think the article meets notability requirements. (Note: I was the closer for the last AfD). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100% Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for unsolved mysteries. Nor is it a place to help secure the identity of missing persons. Wikipedia is not to be used as a tool to identify these people with its exposure. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if he was a nice guy or if his family is suffering because of his death. What matters is whether or not someone is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, notability hinges on significant coverage in notable, reliable sources. As to whether something is notable or not, we as Wikipedians don't even have to make this judgment; the media makes that judgment for us. Penguin Books, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, BBC News and the like decide if something is notable. We turn to these notable, reliable sources (and the like); if there is coverage in notable, reliable sources, then there is enough notability for Wikipedia. Lyle Stevik doesn't meet that simple criteria. co.grays-harbor.wa.us, missingyou7.blogspot.com, doenetwork.org, and dentifyus.org are the only sources. None of them are significant. He is not (and has not been) talked about in mainstream media, no major books, not a headline in national or international news. His death did not garner widespread coverage. Being ranked #14 on Reddit's /r/Wikipedia page doesn't matter; even if it was #1 for a month, it doesn't matter. Reddit is not a valid source. Simply non-notable. And simply *not* unusual; great numbers of individuals remain unidentified and/or unsolved for over a decade. Being non-notable doesn't mean he's insignificant, it just means that he isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently requesting additional sources from newspapers such as The Daily World which apparently did cover the story. On the Doe Network, the paper is listed as a source for information. Such information would count as a a second secondary source for the article and the article would meet the guidelines for secondary sources. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 18:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, although you'll need a subscription to newsbank.com to view it:[4]. The article discusses three cases of unidentified descendants, including Stevik's case, and contains a bit of information that was not in the article. Most notably, a detective states that he is most intrigued by Stevik's case, and discusses several aspects of the case that he considers to be unusual such as the nature of the suicide. The article was published in 2006, about five years after Stevik's death. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the title, author, date, etc? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the information the page provided:

Title: Cold cases haunt detective
Wenatchee World, The (WA) - February 24, 2006
Author/Byline: Lisa Patterson; The Aberdeen Daily World
Section: Northwest News
Page: B04

Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The article discusses three cases of unidentified descendants ..." You do mean "unidentified decedents, right?

(Just blame it on AutoCorrect ... everyone will understand, even if you aren't using an iOS device). Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I did in fact mean unidentified decedent. That would have been a very strange news article if my initial spelling had been accurate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have just incorporated the information from the news article into the page. I believe this settles the arguments made by the opposing side with complaints about needing another source.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I found another source from the Native American Times: [5]. It was published in 2007 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and describes how Lamar Associates, a law enforcement advising firm in DC, had launched a “Missing from the Circle” campaign to try and identify missing or unidentified Native Americans. Stevik was listed as the April 2007 “Missing from the Circle” profile, and the article gives some background information on him. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we shouldn't trust the "find sources" part of the AfD nomination. Thank you for all of your hard work in finding articles for the page. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, does not need to pass WP:CRIME as this is an unknown identity case of a suicide which has garnered lasting attention from multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stay out of this one and remain neutral, it appears mobbing affected me a little bit and I jumped the gun. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lasting attention from multiple reliable sources" ??? Kingturtle = (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingturtle = I've already struck my vote, before you said anything. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stevik got coverage in two news articles and a book (in addition to some more specialty sources). Stevik's death occurred in 2001, but the news articles were published in 2006 and 2007, while the book was published in 2010. I think this qualifies as lasting coverage. Also, Stevik died in Washington, while one of the articles was published in an Oklahoma newspaper while Pinnacle Books seems to be a national publisher, so there is a wide geographical range of sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, This is among the weakest of keeps but two reason pushes me to favor keep. Generally, when an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion over a short period of time the nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I do not think this is the case here. I am very vocal of defending articles subject to repeated nominations, a lack of consensus is a sign of notability. I was unable to access 5 of those sources, Gourami Watcher is an excellent editor whose work in unidentified decedent is an unprecedented contribution to Wikipedia. I was surprise the subject was not there sooner. I trusted given the history of snow keep this article I jumped to conclusion.

I am going with a weak keep because this source (Scott, Robert (1 November 2010). Blood Frenzy. Mass Market Paperback) is a reliable secondary source giving the subject two to three paragraphs of coverage. This source ('Missing from the Circle' service launched to find missing Natives" (22). Native American Times. June 1, 2007) appears reliable as well.

While I am I an inclusionist, I think this article does have some issues particularly with WP:UNDUE. I think some details give the reader the impression there was lasting continual coverage, almost a "who was this man" intrigue. This is not true in fact most sources suggest this is rather common. Some news sources regarding the event as it happened would improve this article. But the fact is it appears the public is interested in this subject and so are it's participating editors hence weak keep. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:44, 2 May 2015 (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.