Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine McCann

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. Closed early due to clear consensus, see WP:SNOW, and article being currently a high profile page at least in the UK. |→ Spaully₪† 19:57, 11 May 2007 (GMT)

Madeleine McCann[edit]

This article doesn't really meet the guidelines for a biography of some sort, and nobody would really expect to have an about a 3 year old girl (Who shouldn't really have articles built around them), even though it is a current event and such. Having an article in this is largely inappropriate as it is all based on news, and there is no point keeping it because when the incident ends, regardless of the result. The article will prove useless. Plus: Wikipedia is not a news station. This should be redirected to a wikinews report; because also when the incident has completely died down (Like a year in the future). Not many people are going to remember this. to sum up when it is over, the article becomes completely useless. Wikipedia can't keep tracking a normal 3 year old's life as she gets older (if she is found alive). Eaomatrix 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - I agree that an article on the child is inappropriate so I have converted the article to one on the event rather than the child. This is an important event that has lead the news in both the UK and Portugal for a week. There are significant implications for Portuguese police methods. The article has the necessary multiple, significant, independent sources to meet WP:N etc. TerriersFan 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yet still, what happens after the event finishes. It will just be abandoned. I think the article should be deleted and redirected to wikinews. Eaomatrix 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree; Wikipedia invariably covers significant events that are in the news when there is, as here, encyclopaedic content. Just as Ben Needham is still referred to 16 years on I judge that this case will be referred to in the future. TerriersFan 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would advise you list it for deletion when that is the case. However, currently this is a very notable article on a current event which has received widespread media coverage. I fail to see how an article is "inappropriate because it is all based on news", see point 6, on What Wikipedia is not. Dave101→talk→contributions • 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far as I can tell, no policy reason has been given for deletion.Chunky Rice 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily enough sources to satisfy WP:N. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The policy reason is that Wikipedia is not a news site or a blog. This is not a biography of an otherwise newsworthy person who is involved in a breaking newsworthy event, which should be included in their bio. This should be moved to Wikinews. Quakerman 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pertinent section to WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a primary news source. It doesn't say that we can't have articles about current events. There's a "Current Events" portal link in the sidebar, in fact. I don't really understand where you're going with Wikipedia is not a blog.Chunky Rice 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the renaming. The article is now about the current event an not the individual per se. Quakerman 19:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the existence of reliable sources is our best yardstick for notability. — brighterorange (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This girl and her disappearance have received multiple coverage in reliable and notable outside sources. Her disappearance is notable, which makes her notable. AecisBrievenbus 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now the article has been renamed. Georgethe23rd 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki the relevant parts to Wikinews. Children disappear or are kidnapped every day without getting a Wikipedia entry. Newsworthiness does not equal encyclopedic notability. Railwayman 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least at present - this is about the event not the person, and the event's certainly notable - it's been the lead story in every UK news organisation for six days in a row, and the only reason it won't be tomorrow is Blair's resignation — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was unsure about the notability of this article when it first appeared; since then it's been moved to a more appropriate page name and regardless there's nothing on WP:N which says it shouldn't be here. Mallocks 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new name, it should be ok. Lemonflash(t)/(c) 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Articles like this are written at least in 4 languages. Are all articles about category kidnapped children and all its subcategories and all its dozens of pages going to be shifted to Wikinews too ? - [email protected] 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the international character of this story guarantees that it will be notable (or at least notorious). I don't see the point to a rename (it's not like we need to disambiguate, and many other articles about a person known for one event are named for the person). --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: now that the article has been moved to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann it should cease to be a biographical article and become one about the incident, rather than the person. The incident is likely to remain notable. --RFBailey 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I disagree that the article be refered to as a biography. It is about the EVENT surrounding the girls disappearance, and not about the actual girl itself. This was discussed on the talk page, and is why the name was changed from 'Madeleine McCann' to 'Disapearance of Madeleine McCann'. Also, as for Railwayman's comments, about 'Children disappear or are kidnapped every day', yes that is true, and no they don't recieve pages, but this now a well documented event. I am sure that there are other types of articles, say for example, the sinking of the Titanic. Loads of ships have sunk, and they don't all have pages. Does this mean that we should delete the page about Titanic? No! Strong Keep Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia has a lengthy article about the identical case of Ben Needham; whatever's decided for this ought to be applied to that as well. I'd suggest moving both to "disappearance of..." with the names as redirects. Incidentally, for all those arguing that this will "soon be forgotten", the Needham story still regularly surfaces in the news sixteen years on — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After creating a Wikinews artice on the disappearance. The existence of other inapproproate articles is not a valid argument to keep an article. Also WP:N Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." The article was created 2 days after the disappearance. This is not intended to be a news of the week magazine, however tragic the case. See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS which reflects the views of some editors. Edison 22:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep per TerriersFan, Weak per Edison --St.daniel Talk 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/transwiki to Wikinews WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid delete rationale. Although this is notable, and there are reliable sources to prove it, this is formatted and is a news article. An article on Wikinews is more appropriate for this. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. While I can understand Eaomatrix's reasons for this nomination, this is a current event, and the outcome of that event for good or bad could decide the article's notability. If this is a simple child abduction, then regrettable as it may be, it is not WP material. If it were to lead to changes in the law, for example, then it would be distinctly notable. I suggest that - for the time being - this be kept, and reassessed once we have the opportunity to assess it with due hindsight. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It should not be held as a biography. However, the eventual outcome (assuming there is one) should also not decide whether it is kept or not. Wikipedia holds a great deal of material on historical events and, whether there is a good or bad outcome, that is what this article should depict. Wikipedia also contains a great deal of material on unfolding events that is updated regularly (such as the recent Muslim campaigns against cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed). Given that, it would be somewhat hypocritical to remove it and there is no basis for doing so. The investigation into the disappearance has shown marked differences between the laws of the United Kingdom and that of other European countries. It is also worth noting that this is not the first such disappearance of a child in Portugal. Such matters could be added to the article to flesh it out a bit.TickledPink 05:39, 11 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Strong keep Per comments above. The event is certainly notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia at the present time. Dave101→talk  06:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is big - I don't know how else to say it! Robinson weijman 07:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has dominated the British national news since it happened. It is far more important than the thousands of articles we keep on very minor celebrities. -- Necrothesp 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep. This article has been in the front pages of the news for over a week, certainly notable. We should get rid of the deletion template right now, as this will be a significant entry point for viewers and there is a clear consensus. |→ Spaully₪† 09:59, 11 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep This article focuses on the event, Madeleine's disappearance. Even after there is an outcome [hopefully, she is found], this article can be a reference for similar events. I hate to put it in such a cold manner, but this can be a sort of "case study". The disappearance has generated a great deal of media interest and is of enough value to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Yes, the article may be copied either in parts, or in whole to Wikinews, but it deserves a place in Wikipedia nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagmikanta (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep This is big news and a big event - an encyclopedia needs things like this. It will be created over and over again if it is deleted. Many people will read it, as they do on many cases that capture the public eye. We've got articles on the recent Suffolk Ripper case of December last year, and things like the Moors Murders and Ian Huntley and Fred West - so why shouldn't we have one on this subject. Many crime enthusiasts will enjoy this article. Lradrama 12:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the point of the nomination, and the differences to the Wiki-News site are relativly small. But, it clearly passes WP:N, moving the article removed it from the requirements of WP:Bio; and removing it would presently be an arduous task of continually nominating and removing it - even if a redirect to the WikiNews site was implemented. Rgds, --Trident13 12:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The abduction of this little girl will form part of the historical record of our understanding of child abduction, the police investigation of child abduction, and the public / media response to child abduction. Obviously other children have been abducted and not had a Wikipedia article written about them, but my impression is that the public response to this one is unusual and may have ongoing ramifications. Rather like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, the public reaction is irrational, but an important phenomenon in itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.167.107.66 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Article 'Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' will remain of interest after the incident's resolution. AdamSebWolf 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - we have whole categories on kidnapped children and disappeared people, and this story has proved to be very newsworthy, which IMO makes it a suitable inclusion for Wikipedia in addition to Wikinews. If this article is deleted, may we as well delete the articles on Ben Needham and Jamie Bulger? I believe there is a strong case here for keeping this article, and not just for reasons of emotion or compassion. Andrew (My talk) 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madeleine_McCann&oldid=1136109779"