Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pemiscot County Does

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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pemiscot County Does[edit]

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

Day three, and the third nomination from @Gourami Watcher:'s personal InformativeMurderPornPedia project. This was previously AFD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi County Does where it was kept due to lack of activity, don't make the same mistake twice. Like Tempe Girl, this article also hosts amateur self-illustrated portraits - File:Pemiscot County Unidentified Male Recon 001a.jpg & File:Namus 5158 Reconstruction 009a.jpg.

The murders are not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does not cover every murder, even if every murder is covered by a reliable source somewhere. There are no reliable sources other than local news and crime databases. No significant independent coverage of the case. - hahnch e n 17:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said before, the page meets criteria for WP:VICTIM/ONEEVENT, as the crime was unusual, since both victims have remained unidentified for nearly four decades. The crime has been covered by national resources such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the government-run National Missing and Unidentified Persons System which are both credible and have national importance. The fact that this article contains "amateur self-illustrated portraits" has absolutely no relevance to indicate if the cases are notable but simply reduces the amount of non-free images to be uploaded. On another note, I'd appreciate the absence of offensive and unnecessary phrases such as " Gourami Watcher's InformativeMurderPornPedia project." You have the right to your own opinion, just don't be a jerk--GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a database does not mean a crime/person is notable. I really don't want to see your United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry series of biographies on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 02:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the criterias at WP:VICTIM and ONEEVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG - Notability is there so seeing no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 7 April 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.