Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asha Degree

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. Wikipedia is not a missing person website, and although we wish the people concerned the very best of luck with finding Asha - no doubt individual editors would be more than willing to help in whatever way they can - Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this. Please see WP:BLP1E for more information on our guidelines on this subject, and remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, and that perhaps Wikinews would be a more appropriate venue, although not perhaps an idfeal one - I am not aware of Wikinews' policies. I have informed the office about this closure. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Degree

edit
Asha Degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:BLP1E. If there's enough coverage for the event to be considered notable, the article should cover that. Unfortunately, being a missing person alone doesn't appear to make a person notable. Contested prod. Onorem♠Dil 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Her disappearance did not cause major changes in how law enforcement handle disappearances and there doesn't seem to be anything else remarkable about the case. (perhaps we can transwiki somewhere?) - Mgm|(talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any way to keep this information as a public service? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ChildofMidnight brought this to my attention. If it was kept, it can't be because it is a "public service", as that isn't a criteria for inclusion. (that rationale fits the WP:IMPORTANT issue). Some of these missing children issues do get significant coverage, including from the FBI, Americas most wanted, etc. They question is "are these 'independent' in this context? Obviously newspaper reports would be. I am not sure of any consensus on this issue, and the last AFD I was involved in was less "sourceable" than this is (ghits are reasonable for this topic). Based on a flat reading of wp:rs and wp:n, this would be kept as there are several sources available, just not in the article. Based on the bigger picture, I am not sure if we are being a directory for missing children, as many have reliable sources. This also raises WP:BLP issues. We need a bigger audience to get a consensus. Withholding a !vote for now. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up From what I can see, there has never been a consensus to treat missing persons any differently than other living persons. There is one twist: they are often a victim of a crime (at least kidnapping), and most are children, and this is very problematic for BLP reasons. These can be easily primary sourced, and most (including this one) can be secondary sources adequately as well. Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, we need a larger discussion somewhere else (likely at BLP) to come up with a guideline for these, as they are becoming more frequent. Not to be morbid, but we don't know if they are alive, but I would say that WP:BLP applies until proven otherwise or another guideline is developed. Still not sure how to !vote, although sources exist. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and natalie halloway or the amber hagerman case are more of a reason to have a page in their dedication and information? there is no difference in the cases, except that asha degree is African American. This is another case of "missing pretty white girls" get news coverage. The Asha Degree disappearance is as much of a case as the other two. The whole of North and South Carolina know of her, and nearly 8 years later, still wonder whats happened. The case remains unsolved and by putting her information on wikipedia, it furthers the advancement of possible closure, or findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.231.75 (talk)
    • If you are going to play the race card, have the courtesy to back it with examples. Discounting your example, this is why I am asking about a policy, to insure all cases are treated equal. Also, please read WP:WAX, as other article existing is not a reason to keep. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well sir or madam.. these days u have to play the race card as things still arent equal. and as i said natalie halloway, and amber hagerman. 2 examples. your welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.231.75 (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2008 (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/Asha_Degree&oldid=1146395600"