Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Brandi Wells


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of Brandi Wells

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a database for missing persons. The majority of the sources are, in fact, databases themselves. Disappearances can be somewhat tricky because they sometimes generate local coverage on anniversaries. However, it would be difficult to argue this coverage isn't routine in nature. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nothing distinguishes this disappearance from all the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRIME, which states "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." An event of 12 years ago is hardly "news". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - WP:CRIME states "The victim ... consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Whatever you're quoting doesn't come from WP:CRIME, maybe WP:NCRIME which is a different guideline altogether? And the thing you've quoted isn't a statement of notability, it's a statement telling you that articles on this topic fall under the guideline of WP:CRIME if they meet the set circumstances (i.e the police are treating it like a crime). A disappearance is not a criminal act in itself, hence it doesn't always fall under the guideline of WP:CRIME. That's why this statement exists. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I left out an "N",, and the quote above appears at WP:NCRIME, which is a shortcut to the relevant section of Notability (events). This is not a biography per se. It is an article about a disappearance. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, so is this a procedural keep,, because the nominating rationale doesn't address the relevant notability guideline? because you're statement still doesn't actually assert notability of any form, it only states that you're looking at the relevant guideline. This might be a valid argument though, but, I'd need some evidence of "not routine coverage" in accordance with the guideline you're quoting. I'm working on that right now, hence my lack of a statement here so far. Sorry we're chatting on two different pages, so I'll ping you here . Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As this article shows, there is still in depth coverage of the disappearance 11 years later, which is an indication that this topic meets the "duration of coverage" part of the guideline. The coverage being tied to the anniversary is not relevant. Newspapers use hooks just like we do with "Did you know" on the main page - so what? The fact that reliable media outlets are covering the disappearance 10 and 11 years later shows that it is notable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see how you've drawn that conclusion. I only found local media outlets that are still covering this, and that's true for many non-notable crimes. Longview is where she disappeared, and KETK-TV (the source you link) covers news in the Jacksonville-Tyler-Longview area. With a combined population of about 200,000 (out of 28 million) this news isn't even statewide. It's not convincing for me. Thanks for your time though. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CRIME and references seems good as well. BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning Delete - The most relevant portion of WP:NCRIME is: As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The important phrases here are (1)"high-profile", (2)"coverage [that] meets the above (WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATIONALISM) guidelines, and (3)reliable sources. I've been doing a search for news coverage on the web and also just a general google search. I've found this piece of local coverage returning to the event 11 years later (May 12th, 2017), a similar local coverage piece (Sept 15, 2017), and this last 10 year anniversary piece which is also local coverage (Aug 2, 2016). The only other things I've found are reddit posts and blogs. I don't know how reliable this is but this statement gives me pause: According to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, 90,000 people are missing at any given time in this country. There are currently 2,000 missing persons cases in Texas, half of which are still active. This article deals with a drop in the proverbial bucket. I can definitively say that there is no chance that this meets criterion 1 set out above. This leads to criterion 2 and 3 together. There is a dearth of reliable sources for this article, it's mostly databases and a couple pieces of local news. I don't consider these to be "routine" per say given that they are revisiting events a decade on, but, it's not sufficient to pull me to the position of keep. We could pack the encyclopeadia full of these kinds of articles. Some are encyclopedic, and some are not. This one, in my estimation, falls under the category of "is not". Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete an unsolved possible crime which hasn't attracted anything but the expected local interest. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced and just as notable as other articles, people are now way too picky of what should be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a tragic event, but ultimately a routine disappearance and an example of the Missing white woman syndrome. Coverage is local / routine. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourced to missing person DB and local reporting. My BEFORE doesn't show anything beyond local reporting. I'm amenable to changing my !vote if someone brings up national coverage. Note that procedurally the nomination is incorrect, as the disappearance of people is not a routine NOTNEWS event. I'm !voting as I am since this doesn't meet WP:NCRIME or WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NCRIME. A news archive search shows local coverage, continuing with occassional stories for years after the event, but it does not seem to have drawn attention beyond the local papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2018 (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.