Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Amy Fitzpatrick


 * 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. Borderline between keep and no consensus here, it would be nice if more sources were added so we can avoid having this discussion again in four months. Courcelles 00:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of Amy Fitzpatrick

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Standard missing persons case with no notability. Dmol (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:VICTIM. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - does not fail WP:VICTIM, per coverage. and WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in my opinion to any article as Wikipedia IS in fact built on news. Without news no article about any person would have been made. Most wikipedia articles are sourced with news-sites material. Anyway notable disappearance article.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also when searching on Amy Fitzpatrick and Amy Fitzpatrick disappearance I recieved 4 340 000 hits on Google.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you get those figures. "Amy Fitzpatrick" + "disappearance" gets about 90 hits. AF in quotes gets only 40,000, and most are not about the same person.  All this is not relevant as google hits are specifically excluded from notability --Dmol (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)criteria.--Dmol (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Only because i find it notable and backed with reliable sources. Now, why i said weak? Because the article needs to worked on. Example: Format the references. The prose is okay. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  07:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage appears to be international and persistent.  There are about 600 GHits using the name in quotes and either the word "disappearance" or "missing"; of those GHits a number are of substance.  BTW - Jivesh, a poorly written article is not a valid reason to delete an article, in addition, neither are poorly formatted references. Rather than making those comments, it is probably a better alternative to edit the article to a level of quality that is consistent with Wikipedia standards.  My best to you...   red dog six  (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. What is international and persistent about the coverage. One of the reasons I listed this for deletion is that it does not have significant coverage. The first two refs are family sites set up for her.  The third is a standard news item from Ireland, which considering she is Irish is hardly suprising. Forth is a typical follow-up from Sky, (also common in Ireland although based in the UK) and the fifth is an English language news outlet in Spain that mentions the ransom.  There's nothing international, nor persistent in these.--Dmol (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ireland --> Spain: Doesn't more than one country indicate international coverage? Regardless of the language, one country = local coverage, two or more = international.  As far as persistent goes, the Euro Weekly news outlet lists over 35 instances of articles that mention the individual.  In addition, one must not only look at the references included in the article, but all existing references.  If one reviews individual GHits (not just the numbers) there appears enough of substance to support the article.   red dog six  (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's substantial enough coverage as in the past, which is no endorsement that she was notable during her life. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never made any claim that she was notable in her life. My claim was that there is no evidence of notability about this case. If you have "substantial coverage" please add it to the article, because it's not there at the moment.--Dmol (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote "substantial enough" -- see WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2011 (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.