Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caylee Anthony disappearance

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Anthony disappearance

This entire article is hearsay.

This isn't a biography about this person, this is more like a news account of a disappeared child. Therefore in my view, it is more of a news article than anything else and thus doesn't fit into the scope of the project. TrekFanatic (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikinews - where news goes. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Could be made into a half decent article, but as the event is still recent with no firm outcome is better suited to Wikinews. The claim the event captured the international media is laughable.Paul75 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should leave the artical when the trial is finished. this will be a great article. and let me tell you something paul people get nancy grace all over the world im not saying i agree with her but she is on cnn any one with a dish knows about this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.166.47 (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is not the international media, CNN is an American news service that remains an American news broadcaster no matter where it is seen. Paul75 (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Plenty of sources. Notable and for heavens sake if you delete this one you may as well delete the others. If your problem is that it is too much of a news article you could have taken the problem to the talk page and asked people to fix it and again this is notable and deserves it's place on the Project. This is just like the other various articles about people who have disappeared. You don't just delete because you feel it is not worthy. You delete because it is not worthy. Sources ranging from small town newspapers to international outlets say this person is notable and many people working on this article me included would have answered to your suggestion of changing the article. I agree myself that this is rather newish and that can be fixed. This is a community after all.Rgood erm ote 02:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm assuming that this is a good faith nomination, rather than making a point; the statement that "this isn't a biography about this person, this is more like a news account of a disappeared child" suggests that the nominator is new to Wikipedia. I can only say that Wikipedia's format is to write about the crime, rather than the victim, and the titles of the articles follow accordingly. As callous as it may sound, a three year old child does not have much of a biography because she never had the chance to live a full life. One of the things that separates notable from yesterday's news is how long a subject receives coverage after the immediate timeframe. There's no ignoring the fact that this disappearance has been focused on by the media, or that people consult Wikipedia when wanting to know more about the background. No, Wikipedia's article isn't in first place when people are looking for information [1], but it's obvious that people do turn to Wikipedia in getting information. Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I "fixed" this incomplete AfD earlier without commenting on it. This is a notable crime that should have an article. However, this article is written in a breathless "current events" style (like a TV news report), and needs rewriting to become more like an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect - I think the article should be called "Calyee Anthony", her disappearance does not need it's own article for heaven's sake. Res 2216 firestar 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The names of most (but not all) articles about crimes with otherwise nonnotable victims describe them as articles about the crime, not as articles about the oerson. For example, see the articles in Category:Kidnapped American children. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's reasoning is faulty. It's the disappearance that is notable, not the kid herself. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — The article is sourced, and it does not fail wp:BLP1E because it is about the disappearance, not the actual person. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- her disappearance was notable, and since thats swhat the article is about, there's no BLP1E issue. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's a notable crime, was reported by many different sources. Needs to be re-written though. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an obvious "keep", for heaven's sake. I won't repeat the above arguments in support of keeping and in opposition to deleting. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy keep Is an obivous keeper. Lets end this discussion here and now.--Judo112 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pretty soon this case is going to blow up big time. It has been featured on mainstream shows such as Dr. Phil (making it notable at least in a national scope) and once all is said and done, this will end up being as big as several of the other articles involving crimes which have made their way onto Wikipedia. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepI see no trouble with this article. It's accurate and should be kept.

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.