Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson

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. A tragic and sad case, but WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions....William 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recreate once we have solid reliable sources that are independent of the subject; all sources right now are necessarily chronologically close to the subject. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per me being the creator. And the fact that WP:NOTNEWS is a hollow guideline considering that most Wikipedia article are based on news and news media sources. It is a highly covered story. And frankly I think the AfD nominator needs to give a better explanation than NOTNEWS for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that many of our articles shouldn't exist. We have Wikinews for a reason, and that's where pages should go when they're not based on time-independent sources. We are an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are based on stable sources. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikinews has been a "dead project" since the start with very few updates or use. Just saying. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't been following the case closely, so don't know many of the details, but maybe we should mothball this article and wait until any legal proceedings are over. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - I don't want to be heartless but this news story is repeated hundreds of times a year around the world and is not unique with lasting effects. As such, it should be incubated and can be re-created if something moves it into the notable catagory. If I may also say that WP:NOTNEWS is part of WP:NOT and that is a policy, not a "hollow" guideline.
Delete-Incubate - as above. I wish it were not true, but unless there is something unique situationally, sociological, or scientific/procedural with the case--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not news. Very tragic indeed (I work in Didcot, there right now as a matter of fact) but not worthy of an article. If it does in the future, then incubate. Somchai Sun (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Loriendrew — OwenBlacker (Talk) 02:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources seem to indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (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.