Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carlease Simms


 * 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) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Carlease Simms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I realise that this thing has citations but we're not a missing persons database and, really, there doesn't seem to be any substance to this article beyond routine reports. There is nothing to verify inclusion in Category:Crime in New Jersey. Does it really meet the spirit of WP:GNG ? Sitush (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete basically falls under "Wikipedia is not news." Even if it is old news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unfortunately, I think you are going to have a major clean-up on your hands. The editor who created this page has also written a series of articles which, in my opinion, falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Missing persons cases are interesting subjects for the media to cover; some established a historical significance while others, like this one, are routine in nature. Nothing about this strikes me as WP:DIVERSE or of long-term importance to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree but I am somewhat restricted by my poor access to US news sources etc, many of which are paywalled, and thus my ability to do WP:BEFORE. Any help would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing here that meets the notability standard and nothing else turns up in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to pass GNG and NCRIME - sourcing in article doesn't establish notability. Note that editor opinion on importance is not relevant - but coverage - which in this case does not seem to exist. Willing to change my vote if someone finds a large collection of 1980s newspaper sources - which I haven't been able to find in a BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 25 September 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.