Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maura Murray (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Law (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 28 September 2009 (→‎Maura Murray: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Maura Murray

AfDs for this article:
Maura Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. She's known only for being missing. Coverage is local also. So she's limited to local notability. Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Lara 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Page has been moved to: Disappearance of Maura Murray - --Cyclopia (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lara is interpreting NOTNEWS too widely here. NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but neither of those applies here. The case definitely meets the WP:GNG, as it has been covered indepth in multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage is national and ongoing, so it meets the criteria for notability of criminal acts, which covers disappearances where the police suspect a criminal act: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts. I certainly will write the sources I found into the article tomorrow; I regret not sourcing it properly before. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Dont Know Keep i would argue that this fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E but the girl who was killed at the red sox rally thing after the world series in 04 has or had her own page for just being killed but if you could rework this article Into The Dissaperance of Maura Murrey then Keep but jenna is right its not your average missing person a car crash and never seen again? AKWARD BigPadresDude 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I note that the article has been moved, however that fails to address the fact that this still fails WP:BLP1E as a bio, or WP:NOTNEWS as an article on the disappearance. I do not see any lasting significance here. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The news routinely reports on young, missing females. Usually white. This is not historical. Or interesting. Her CDs were left in her car along with a book? Do tell :P Law type! snype? 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" and "historical" are just your opinions and interestigness is not an objective criteria. I don't find it interesting either, but the media thought otherwise. BLP1E does not apply since the rename -we're talking of the event. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that her family and friends will read this discussion, please have more respect. Fences&Windows 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must protest very strongly at these calls for deletion. Vaguely referring to policy is not the same as reasoned argument. They are incorrect for three reasons: 1. NOTNEWS does not say what everyone thinks it says, as I explained above. NOTNEWS is not a blanket reason to not cover events. 2. This is a possible criminal event, so it is covered by our notability rules on criminal events, not by BLP1E. 3. There is ample national American news coverage, which I have linked to above, and which I will now incorporate into the article. Fences&Windows 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sources added. National in depth coverage has included Fox's Line Up, Nancy Grace's Cold Cases, CNN's American Morning, 20/20, and Montel Williams. Fences&Windows 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it falls under BLP1E. WP:BLP is policy. — Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me phrase that better: citing BLP1E as a reason for deletion is not appropriate. The article was always about her disappearance and is now titled to reflect this, so it is in compliance with what BLP1E says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." As the event is notable, we should keep the article. If you want to delete, you'd better not simply cite NOTNEWS and BLP1E, as they aren't valid reasons to delete this article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Chalk me up as one of those who greatly dislikes the inclusion of articles simply because the subjects kick up a lot of ephemeral fuss on the 24-hour-news cycle. That being said, the renaming took BLP1E out of the running, the article is focused on the event rather than on the person, it's heavily sourced and from non-local sources as well. While NOTNEWS is also being cited, the text is quite clear: it pertains mostly to individuals, not events, and only those events which are "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" are specifically enjoined; I'd hate to be the one daring to make a case for the Boston Globe, ABC News or CNN being tabloids. I'd like to advocate deletion, but legitimate policy grounds to do so just aren't present here.  RGTraynor  00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in this case, I feel there is sufficient coverage, over a sufficiently long period of time, for WP:BLP1E to not apply. Some disappearances are notable, and this seems to be one of them. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some of the things said above about NOTNEWS are not correct. It certainly does apply to routine news coverage about events such as kidnappings, murders, and executions, and it does apply to routine announcements in non tabloid publications such as say the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal. However, the fact that this particular disappearence has received repeated coverage at intervals for at least 5 years (2004-2009) means that it is not just a transient news event and thus is notable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom. Regarding NOTNEWS, as Rusty pointed out, NOTNEWS does apply to this sort of coverage. It is routine for local newspapers to cover missing persons in their area. Tabloid journalism is not limited to tabloid newspapers. Tabloids just print pretty much exclusively tabloid journalism. Specifically speaking on this article as it is now, BLP1E does indeed no longer apply because the article has been retitled to the event, which is what 1E dictates. Whether or not NOTNEWS continues to apply depends on how significant the non-local coverage is. Are the pieces original stories or are they merely reprints of the local? WP:N/CA comes in at this point. Missing person cases where criminal conduct is suspected are not inherently notable. In fact, it gives a strong argument against keeping some of the recent cases we've seen come up at AFD.

    Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.

    So the question is, how "intense" has the media coverage been, and do we consider this a "high profile" case? I think of Lacy Peterson when I am considering what a high profile missing persons case is. Lara 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • When you see national media stories like this [14] 4 years after the event, and local media stories like [15] even more recently, and when a google search for Maura Murray yeilds 690,000 hits I think you have passed the threshold of a transient news story. This doesn't seem like even a marginal case to me. There are plenty of marginally source articles about one news cycle only topics that deserve deletion, but I don't see this as beeing one of them. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it appears that this particular case is being used as part of a campaign to have a cold case unit created for NH [16], which would make it part of the "incorporation in an important public debate" notability recognized by for example WP:News articles.
      • Comment: In addressing what is and is not in NOTNEWS, allow me to quote the pertinent section: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." If anyone can point out where the rule states that news coverage of kidnappings, murders and executions (for instance) falls under its aegis, feel free.  RGTraynor  01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You started your quote late. The sentence before what you quoted says: " However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability ". That wording applies to all news. However, it doesn't (at least as far as I am concerned) apply here to this particular article because this event has received repeated coverage years after the fact. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The section you are quoting is not from WP:NOTNEWS. In point of fact, the sentence before the section I quoted is "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." You're quoting from the GNG, a guideline generally trumped by verifiability.  RGTraynor  08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and WP:BLP1E. Non-biographical article. Chuthya (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact it is no more listed as a biography -it has been moved for this reason. --Cyclopia - talk 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. BLP1E applies to any article. Law type! snype? 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maura_Murray_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=316761544"