Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Miya Marcano


 * 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. Consensus is that Marcano's death does not meet the significant, sustained coverage and impacts required for an article to exist. Star  Mississippi  03:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Death of Miya Marcano

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Common occurance. Completely non-notable.  scope_creep Talk  01:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: For more time for policy-based input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  18:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage about the death is available. In this specific case I see the nominator cites WP:BLP1E, it is true that Miya Marcano may not be notable per 1EVENT, but the death is, and in that specific case, Miya Marcano simply redirects to Death of Miya Marcano, as it already does now. The death of Miya Marcano has significant coverage both in the references already on the page and more I can find by searching, and meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Garnarblarnar (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep, yes the article has significant coverage and is totally worthy of inclusion and I am in agreement with those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The underlying event that is basis for this article is completely common. A person goes missing every 90 seconds in the uk, a common occurence, with roughly 0.1% of those murdered, which is about 320-327 people a year. So that is a common occurence. The pattern for families who are in despair, they try and bring meaning into the thing, holding vigils, setup foundations and charity's, memorials and so on. Almost the same pattern. The paper's have a duty to report on it, but it is common crime, a common occurence everywhere on the planet and is completely non-notable. It is generic. A generic article. It fails WP:CRIME.    scope_creep Talk  10:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep TzarN64 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. Pilaz (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Not every murder is notable. If it was, we'd have 20,000 articles in the US alone every year. This one, sadly, isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sustained coverage, note all the RS is dated to Sept/Oct 2021 and nothing past that date. WP:NOTNEWS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as—unfortunately—WP:MILL and a lack of SIGCOV as suggested above. Also noting the paucity of at least one delete !vote.   SN54129  13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article has lots of good sources and is keep warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Routine coverage of a tragic event. Newsworthy, but not WP:N. Star Garnet (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the difference between this article and any other article about a noteworthy disappearance and murder. It was widely reported on and is sourced properly with ample written information. solluxstark (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (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.