Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sneddon (kidnap victim)


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

David Sneddon (kidnap victim)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was originally tagged for speedy deletion by an IP using the rationale

"Millions of people walk away from their families or their situations every year, and the scenario, "this person was abducted by north korean agents" belongs roughly to the same level of credibility that NASA is faking Moon Landings. People who leave their families typically do so for a reason, but rather than face intra-family realities, of course anybody can just assert 'north korean operatives' magically reached into China, hiding their work from all five chinese police agencies, and spirited away the American to lala land."

I deleted the page per WP:CSD, but then recreated the talk page and provided a link to claims of the Japanese government that support the kidnapping theory. Actually that is not the case though since the WSJ merely writes that "Pyongyang has admitted abducting Japanese citizens." I have nevertheless restored the whole article, and we should now decide about the level of notability. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps De728631 does not have access to the full article, but I quote: "Speaking in Tokyo last month about Mr. Sneddon's disappearance, Keiji Furuya, Japanese minister of state for the abduction issue, told me: "It is most probable that a U.S. national has been abducted to North Korea."" The article continues: "The charge that an American citizen was likely kidnapped by North Korea is noteworthy in and of itself. It is even more so coming from a cabinet-rank member of the Japanese government about a citizen of another country." I should add that I do not have any opinion yet on this AfD (though I would need convincing that this clears the issues raised in WP:BIO1E), I only objected to the use of speedy deletion based on the pure conjecture of an anonymous IP, when major news agencies like the WSJ had been reporting on this event. Michitaro (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - My low regard for "Victims-and-Perps" pseudobiography notwithstanding, this pretty clearly runs afoul of BLP-1E. Even the question of whether the disappearance was a kidnapping is a matter of dispute, despite the sensationalistic article title. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Like Carrite; I am not seeing how this is going to overcome BIO1E, a mention in other articles relating kidnaps by Pyongyang would be sufficient.  LGA  talk  edits   23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the article writers is reverting the fact that the alleged kidnapping victim disappeared some five thousand kilometers from the North Korean border. China is a huge country. It's like attributing a missing family dog in Georgia to a Montana mountain lion. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not one of the article writers. I am merely trying to maintain the standards of Wikipedia, and thus welcome this AfD. I should note, however, that your "logic" lacks support. Of the kidnappings the North Korean government has admitted to, several took place in Europe: . Please stop trying to create your own reasoning and begin offering sources to support your claims. Michitaro (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Kidnapping an individual from a First World nation is an entirely different can of worms from kidnapping an individual from the Golden Triangle. If I am a diplomatically protected government and I stuff you into a Mercedes S600, I can transport you to anywhere in the world using diplomatic privilege. Unfortunately, Yunnan China is some five thousand kilometeres of unpaved roads away from North Korea. I have traveled extensively throughout China, and I can report the roads and transportation network is primitive--and furthermore, there are police-camera checkpoints every forty kilometers. The family's thesis that their son was kidnapped by north Korean agents is roughly as credible as the idea that bug-eyed monsters from Mars are beaming radio waves into our heads. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm. Isn't Japan a First World nation? Hasn't it suffered many kidnappings, including some that N. Korea admits took place in Europe? And 5000 km of dirt roads? You have to travel near Beijing to get to N. Korea from Yunnan. So that area is all dirt roads? What about planes and trains? Others on the AfD have offered good arguments based on the rules. Spurious argumentation does not help. Michitaro (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, what I am saying is that it is easier to kidnap a person from a First World nation. If I wanted to take out somebody in the U.S., I could simply fly to their closest Southwest airlines served airport, rent two or three vehicles for a week to establish their movement patterns, and then at the most appropriate location, jump out and stuff them into a car trunk. The parents' thesis that their disappeared son, who disappeared in a region of the world marked by high mountains and dangerous gorges as well as some of the world's most dangerous heroin growing areas, was kidnapped by north korean agents in order to teach English in their universities (which Charles Jenkins points out, is a job extremely easy to sabotage; you just fake accents or teach gibberish), belongs to some spurious category of green-Mars aliens and dead Elvis sightings. The Chinese security forces maintain rigorous control over their trains and planes, and would not ignore the odd sight of a drugged Westerner being accompanied by North Korean government operatives. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The issue really revolves around the conditions outlined in WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. If one believes there should be an article, should it be about the victim or about the event? "When an individual plays a major role in a minor event" (as is the case here) "it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." Currently there is only an article on the person. But in this case, the individual is only known through the event, and is also a "low profile individual" according to WP:BLP1E. This, and the low significance of the event, seems to satisfy the three conditions of WP:BLP1E, which then recommends only mentioning the individual in the event article. But the problem we face here is judging whether there really has been an event. The anonymous IP's arguments that such an event is impossible are poorly supported if not spurious. Given past kidnappings, it is clearly in the realm of possibility and the press coverage that exists entertains the possibility as a realistic one. But even the WSJ article, which strongly leans towards asserting the kidnapping really happened, does not declare it outright. BLP1E moves us to merge the individual into the event article, but for Wikipedia to have an article on an event that may not have happened--and even provide an article title that definitely asserts it did happen--is problematic and touches on issues of WP:V and WP:NPOV. One would need considerably more coverage out there to justify an article on an event that may not have happened. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. Michitaro (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Per A7. Article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E - not a suitable search term (and invites confusion with a totally different David Sneddon), the sources might be good for citing something like North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens, which might be worth converting into a more general "abductions" article. Not an A7, unless you somehow think being kidnapped by North Korean spies is just a run of the mill thing that happens to any old non-notable person. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:27, 29 August 2013 (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.