Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Marie Williams (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Notability in such cases is a judgment call, policy neither requires nor forbids such articles. The consensus in this instance is clear. DES (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Christina Marie Williams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT a memorial. Has not gained any notability other than having been kidnapped. Based on my reading of articles in Category:Murdered American children, it seems like notability is established in having legislation named after the person. This Williams person doesn't appear to have anything like that. hbdragon88 00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notability established by having major celebrities speak out for her. -N 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - if she's referenced in the news, people will look her up for information. Wikipedia always has served that historical resource function and should continue to. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has gained widespread media attention, and well-known celebrities spoke out for her. THAT is NOTABLE.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, passes WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Nom's reasons for deletion are rather shaky. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something can be verified and based on reliable sources doesn't mean it necessarily belongs here, e.g. Allison Stokke, Qian Zhijun, can't think of anymore right now). I don't see how it's "shaky," they're based on WP:NOT, which when I last checked was policy...checks...still policy.  I should add that it's WP:NOT in addition to WP:NOT. hbdragon88 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that NOT#MEMORIAL and NOT#NEWS apply here, since the person in question seems to be notable beyond the scope of one single event. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is? I read the article.  She's just a missing person.  The celebrities only spoke out because she was missing. hbdragon88 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, she passes WP:BIO and WP:V. Therefore I see no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we're going in circles. I demonstrated examples of articles that, despite being verifable and meeting WP:BIO, were still deleted. hbdragon88 04:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all she meets WP:BIO. Second she meets WP:V. Finally, I think the fact that wikipedia has as stated above has always served as a historical reference certainly to some extent justifys her inclusion. I don't think there is any questioning her notability or verifiability. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Wouldnt this be better off as "Abduction of Christina Williams" on wikinews because this person is just known for one incident.  Is there any "considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events" for this person? Corpx 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Being verifiable is not enough to have a Wikipedia article. The subject must also be notable, and per recent AFD results and the policy WP:NOT, the subject must be more than a newspaper story, since something can be newsworthy without being encyclopedic. Other than being a crime victim, she was a non-notable 13 year old and thus fails to satisfy WP:BIO. What remains is a memorial article, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. No news articles are presented to show it was a big news item, but if they were found, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a crime archive. Edison 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep celebrity attention when reported in the media makes for notability. DGG (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isnt notability superceded by WP:NOT ? Corpx 01:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT#NEWS says in part "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." (emphasis added)  That means that more than mere appearance in the news is needed, but provides very little guidance on what more.  Essentially, a belief that there will be some long-term notability for one reason or another is my take on what more is needed, and that belief can form in different ways, the most common of which are reflected in notability guidelines.  So I wouldn't say that WP:NOT#NEWS trumps notability, it just interacts with it kinda wierdly.  (WP:NOT#NEWS also says that we should be writing encyclopedia articles, not news articles.)  GRBerry 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.