Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Anna Christian Waters


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Anna Christian Waters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be just another "routine" disappearance. The sources are all connected with her family in some way or another - their website, an appeal 30 years later, a self-published book etc. It is routine news with no lasting significance (except to her family and friends, of course). The article did claim that she was a kidnap victim but there is no viable support for this and I removed it as being potentially a BLP violation. Sitush (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - No this article is about a known case which recieved plenty of attention at the time. Per sources. Good sourcing which proves the points on the article. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which are the good sources? - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage still does not rise above news level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. There is a book -, and some coverage - e.g.  - but it doesn't seem enough. If someone does a WP:HEY and brings period newspaper coverage that establishes notability - I am amendable to changing my mind. With what I see in the article and available online - this doesn't pass.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the nom, the book is written by a family friend and was self-published. It is useless for our purposes. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage still does not rise above news level coverage : ; @(talk) you have said it . exactly . Samat lib (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources are either routine or primary, neither of which help us gauge WP:SIGCOV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted above, article relies heavily on self-published book and website. Does not appear to have sufficient non-primary sources to establish encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Choosing to stay out of the debate due to my bias, but would like to point out that the nominator did remove a portion of the article before nominating it due to it being unsourced (which could most definitely be researched and built further upon).--  Gourami Watcher Talk 23:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I declared that in my nomination. As I recall (it is late here), the allegations came from the family and had no independent support. I can't imagine the severity of distress that events such as the article describe would cause to those who have an emotional involvement but their feelings do not outweigh considerations of Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (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.