Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carla Losey


 * 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 this is a WP:MILL news item. (Although,, this is the rare case of missing black woman syndrome.)  Sandstein   08:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Carla Losey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A tragic, but run-of-the-mill missing persons case. I hate describing it as that; however, there has only been local reports on the case, there is no significant societal impact, and, above all else, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a database of missing persons. Remember, verifiability does not equal notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 07:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coverage at this time (per article sourcing, and BEFORE) is sparse and limited to local Columbus media (+ missing person DBs), failing WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is enough coverage to say this case is notable even it is mostly only based in Columbus, and I have now added a source to the article which is not just a Columbus source. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - the very limited coverage, the mainly local sourcing, and above all the simple and unfortunately all too common nature of the single event all imply lack of notability. I'm sorry but deletion is the right answer here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete just a run of the mill disappearance of a person case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unfortunately, there are quite a few articles of this type: I hope that the creator(s) are not discouraged from contributing but rather learn from this process. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC) wuill be


 * Oh they definitely will be, I know I will be for sure. Why do you feel the need for deleting my articles? Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a need intrinsically. Nominating articles for deletion, whether they are "yours" or someone else's, does not benefit my health. But if you need an answer: look at my rationale. This is a good opportunity to learn from past mistakes, and brush up on the notability guidelines that prompted me to nominate this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, when five editors take the time, independently, unpaid, to review an article carefully and thoughtfully, and to explain politely what they found, it's best to go with it gracefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have asked some very smart people and they agree with me that just because an person's disappearance doesn't make national news does not mean that it isn't notable, and just because some people think that doesn't make it true. You can ask ten people a question which nine people could answer it wrong and only one could answer it right. That is in fact a reality, and just five people is not a lot of people. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per sources. Additional sourcing added as well after nom.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * why do you always provide such a poor rationale for the sake of keeping an article? I have never seen a thoughtful response from you nor any indication that you analyzed the article or relevant policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- an example of Missing white woman syndrome; no lasting significance or societal impact. Does not meet WP:NCRIME either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a true crime blog. My condolences to the victim's family. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 4 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.