Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Charity Aiyedogbon


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Charity Aiyedogbon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We are not a missing persons database and, as of now, there is scant evidence that this particular person's disappearance meets WP:NCRIME (despite the article being categorised as a crime). Literally hundreds of thousands of people go missing and quite a few of those do get contemporary mentions in the news media but no lasting notability etc can be gleaned from that. Sitush (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - substantial referencing and coverage of this particular event, passes WP:GNG, although article does require some clean up. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't explain my nomination as well as previously. As with other recently deleted articles of this type (and paraphrasing someone else at one of those), it isn't a crime, there are only routine reports on the case, there is no long-term impact, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a database of missing persons. Please remember that verifiability does not equal notability. If this were a BLP (and I suppose it might be), then WP:BLP1E could also apply. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - I was really caught unawares regarding this article's AFD nomination given its wide coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This is a crime-related article and it passes the general notability criteria. There's no rationale behind your nomination of this article for deletion as it also passes the notabilty criteria for events and crime-related articles.-Eruditescholar (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've given a detailed rationale and it is one that has applied to other recently deleted articles of this type. I even mentioned NCRIME, so I can only assume you didn't actually read what I wrote. Aside from Facebook rumours and a dodgy lawyer, there doesn't actually seem to be any basis for considering this to be a crime. As I said, people disappear all the time - about 250k missing person reports a year in the UK alone. If you want to follow up past discussions, see my recent list of what are now redlinks at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously - click on them and you will get to the discussions themselves. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would put it more correctly that your rationale is not sufficient to get this article deleted. The West and other developed countries usually keep data or records of their populations more carefuly and efficiently than their less developed counterparts. As a result, whatever happens to any individual in their territory is usually a big deal. Besides, the Western media often gets information published regarding missing persons unlike their less developed counterparts. This is very glaring since there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on missing persons from these very countries unlike this lone article about a missing Nigerian woman which unfortunately is the subject of this AFD discussion. In Africa and Nigeria to be precise, missing person cases are often under-reported and for this one to attract significant media coverage, then it means there's something unusual or special about it -Eruditescholar (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the systemic bias card. It won't wash because it is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill disappearance. That's also why most of the 250k per annum misper reports in the oh-so-highly-developed UK won't wash either. We are not here to right great wrongs, nor are we a news outlet. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG. good sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to say the same thing at every AfD you participate in, . It sort of loses impact after a while because there never seems to be any sign that you have actually checked anything, hence some bizarre deployments of your boilerplate !keeo. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * keep per EruditeScholar.
 * Please discount this !vote. The anon hasn't edited anything except another AfD - there is a template for this situation but, sorry, I can't recall what it is. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG with long-term coverage.  Here is a source from 19 September 2017.  As per WP:BEFORE B3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..."  Yet there is no discussion on the talk page of the article, and instead there is post-nomination discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-nom discussions are common. A BEFORE was done and I wasn't going to bother with discussing it at the talk page simply because perhaps a dozen of similar articles have been deleted in the last couple of weeks. I did mention it at List of people who disappeared mysteriously, which is the meeting point of all such articles. This one is no different from the others: occasional appeals relating to cases do occur but that doesn't make them notable. Go create Wikimissingpersons to complement the failed Wikinews, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is, for example, lasting coverage of many minor council officials but they are not considered notable. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Given Nigeria is such a large country, the fact this particular case has attracted such attention suggests it is not a routine missing-persons case. The coverage seems to go beyond what would be normally expected. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It just demonstrates the power of Facebook, which is not reliable anyway and merely leads to ridiculous speculation and conspiracy theories. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush; Seriously? While some of the sources used for this crime-related article come from Facebook; most of them come from multiple reliable sources which actually complement the sources from Facebook. Another thing I have observed until now: While anyone is free to contribute to this AFD discussion, I've observed that you've always seen something wrong with other contributors' input. Countering every contributor in this AFD discussion simply because they didn't vote in your favour is really wierd. I am not the sole determinant of the outcome of this AFD discussion but simply because previous AFD's have always closed in your favour doesn't necessarily mean this one will follow the same trend. There's always a first time. -Eruditescholar (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding me. The story was driven by Facebook, a bit like Twitterstorms get reported in mainstream media. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree Facebook is not a reliable source, I'm talking about the coverage in newspapers. Some of that coverage included reporting on a petition from 63 civil society organisations to the police about their handling of the case. The involvement of those organisations suggests it is different to a routine occurrence. The Disappearance of Corrie McKeague is a similar case where Facebook campaigning has been heavily involved; that does not negate the notability of the disappearance. AusLondonder (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG. Lasting long-term coverage - also in 2017 - e.g.  .Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to give up here. It is obvious to me that Wikipedia is becoming a news website driven by the same social media agendas as tabloid newspapers. To be expected, I suppose: tabloids cater for the lowest-common denominator and, boy, is Wikipedia low. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 17 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.