Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Christina Calayca


 * 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. ✗ plicit  04:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Disappearance of Christina Calayca

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am not sure what our current standards are, but there is almost no coverage since 2009, therefore possibly not of continuing encyclopedic interest. The article emphasizes details that would seem to be of relevance only in the immediate period, or to those actively engaged in the search for her.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's claim is false. There are in fact coverage from 2018, 2021, and 2022, which are already in the article. The article is supported by lots of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, yes the article is well sourced and the article is worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep In defence of the article, ten of the sources are from after 2009 (five of them from 2021-2022) and there are three more from active online databases managed by provincial and national Canadian police forces as well as one of their affiliates, suggesting a persistent interest in the case. While media attention has tapered off since 2009, contemporary sources note that media attention in the first two years of the investigation was significant and far-reaching across Canada's largest province, and more recent sources evidence there is persistent public interest in the case. That the initial search is tied with a 2005 search for the longest ever performed by Canada's largest provincial police force is also evidence of its notability. I believe the details included are useful for putting the investigation and theories into context, though a few were included because they are part of the narrative surrounding the case or because they are unusual. I agree that extraneous details should be pared down where they appear, but I do not believe any of them would be considered interesting to only those involved in the investigation. DinoBenn (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete From what I can tell some of the references in the article have retrieval dates of 2018, 2021, and 2022, but were still written around the time of the person's original disappearance. Except with the caveat of a podcast from a year ago and maybe a blog post if I'm getting the dates correct (and I assume I am), but neither of these is usable for notability. So what the first voter said about this having continued coverage is wrong. At least in any way that matters. Otherwise, I'll change my vote if they can point out which references are from the last couple of years outside of the two I've mentioned. In the meantime references from the Canadian police and their affiliates don't work for notability even if they are current, anymore then a podcast or blog post does. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent sources I referred to are episodes of the podcasts The True Crime Files and Cold Case Detective from 2021, which are reasonably popular and mostly included due to the speculation present on their programs; an article from the popular missing persons blog Stories of the Unsolved from January 2022; an episode of the The Next Call podcast, which was published by Canada's national news broadcaster in 2021 and hosted by a prolific CBC crime reporter; and an article from the Elliot Lake Today news service from September 2021. The latter two were both published by reputable news sources and the former three, being independent media, indicate continued public interest in the case 14 years on. DinoBenn (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said there refutes what I said. In the meantime the fact that you say the podcasts are based on speculation just furthers my point that they don't work for notability since podcasts about cold cases are usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations and are therefore unreliable sources. It might as well be a reference to the National Enquirer at that point. The one that was published by Canada's national news broadcaster is no different, it's still based completely on conjecture. "On the CBC true crime podcast The Next Call, host David Ridgen speculated that Denis Léveillé, a suspect in the unsolved 1996 disappearance of Melanie Ethier with a history of sexually abusing teenage girls, may have been responsible for other missing person cases in Ontario." Does a podcast host speculating that some rando "may have" been responsible for the disappearance sound like a reliable source for a biographical article to you? Because to me it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say that those sources are worthy of inclusion because they are "based on" speculation, but that they offer speculation. It would do a disservice to the article not to include speculation from independent media, as these sources address angles which investigators have not brought up because they are potentially embarrassing to police (ex. the starlight tours connection) or baseless (ex. the arranged marriage rumour), and a reader who does their own research on the topic may be misled by online message board threads into thinking said theories have more or less value than they warrant. As to the point about unreliable sources, the article does not derive details about the disappearance from these podcasts except for corroboration purposes. I will also note again that with regards to The Next Call, David Ridgen is an award-winning crime journalist so his conjecture is noteworthy, though I will admit that the context surrounding why Léveillé is more than just "some rando" has been omitted for the sake of brevity. The notion that these sources are "usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations" is itself unsubstantiated, and Wikipedia policy does not state that independent podcasts should not be used as sources. As for whether my reply addresses your original concerns, I will point out that your original case in favour of deletion mentions that the more recent sources I mentioned were actually contemporary sources, while my reply demonstrated they are in fact from 2021-2022. I understand your skepticism about the validity of sources you have not had a chance to vet personally, but please respect that I am engaging with your criticism and not resorting to bad faith tactics to undermine it. DinoBenn (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing sources that can be included in an article to cite something with ones that can be used for showing notability in an AfD discussion. They are different things. There's a higher bar when it comes to using a source to show notability then there is for citing a piece of information in an article. Especially with BLP articles and the source is making un-substantiated legal accusations about people. Also, notability isn't inherited. Just because David Ridgen is a notable crime journalist doesn't mean everything he writes about also automatically becomes notable just because he did a piece on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not confused. The original criticism was that there was only one or two recent sources on the subject, when in fact there are five from just this past year. Your criticism was that those five were not from the past year, and I pointed out that they were. Your reply was that they are not reliable sources for details on the case, to which I argued that they corroborate details offered by more credible sources and their value is in evidencing continued public interest in the case and the forms that takes. With regards to your latest points: Ridgen's speculation is not notable because an accredited journalist suggested it, but because an accredited journalist suggested a likely suspect behind an unsolved disappearance in a remote Northern Ontario community, which said journalist had done extensive research on, might be responsible for an unsolved disappearance in another remote Northern Ontario community given the prolific amount of girls and young women Léveillé assaulted and was convicted of assaulting in life. If anything, this is an indication that more details from the podcast should be included in the article for context, and that my failure was in believing it was sufficient to link to an article where the suspect is discussed in greater depth. As to the other sources, your personal stance on whether they warrant discussion in this forum is noted, but given that the original criticism is that the case is no longer being discussed the fact that multiple sources have commented on the case independent of one another in recent years suggests otherwise. DinoBenn (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I never disputing that multiple sources have commented on the case in recent years. Nor did I say the case was no longer being discussed. I literally said it was recently talked about in a blog post and podcast. But what sources exist from the last couple of years that aren't blogs, speculative podcasts, or the police? Btw, it also can't be the interviews done with her family members. I want something recent that isn't primary and (or) mostly full of unsubstantiated speculation and save the long, mostly off topic diatribes this time. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not spend any more time correcting the record. The Elliot Lake Today article, which I am linking here for your convenience, matches all the qualifications you have outlined. DinoBenn (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A reference from a guy who's recent work includes a story about an encounter he had with ghosts. Real reliable source there lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize that you are arguing in bad faith at this point, but for the sake of anyone reading this thread it should be noted that the linked news article relays factual information about the search & rescue process and how it relates to Calayca's case, including segments of interviews with SAR professionals familiar with the case. Supernatural phenomena do not come up in the article, so whether or not the author of the article believes in ghosts is about as relevant as whether or not they believe in God, Bigfoot, or the Moon. DinoBenn (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How am I arguing in bad faith? I asked you for a reliable source from the last couple of years and you gave me an interview by a guy that writes articles about their experiences with ghosts. Which clearly isn't what I asked for. So your the one being bad faithed here. Either that or you don't know the guidelines and what a reliable source is. The fact that your acting like my issue has to do with the author's beliefs, instead of what they are writing about, makes me inclined to think your acting in bad faith though. Your mischaracterization of what I said about there being recent sources doesn't really make me think your being good faithed either. I could really care less if the author believes in god, but if they are going to write about their near death experience of heaven or whatever as if it actually happened then there's zero reason to assume they care about journalistic accuracy or fact checking. Let alone does the news outlet care about either of those things when its printing their ghost stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is not about ghosts, so the author's opinion on the existence of ghosts has no bearing on the reliability of the article. The publication is owned by Village Media, a well-known media company, and publishes on a number of topics including editorial pieces like the one you are referring to. Almost all news publications do this, including CBC and CTV, often on much more controversial topics. The Elliot Lake Today and its staff are not unreliable because you do not like one piece by a journalist. As for the subject of bad faith arguments, I have a hard time believing that a person could be arguing in good faith when they reply with "lol" to an article about a missing young woman, or when they have put so little thought into their reply that they have not bothered to check that their argument does not contain four misspellings of a common word like "you're". This is my fifth article about a missing person and the first that has been nominated for deletion (on the grounds of notability, not the quality of its citations) so I will not argue with your point that I am ignorant about how the process works since it is a clearly unsubstantiated ad hominem, the latest of many. DinoBenn (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time addressing the petty off-topic and relevant points you've made, like you taking issue with grammatical errors, but WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Except I will say it's laughable that you attacked me for miss-spelling a word in the same message your complaining about ad-hominem attacks. What's more hilarious though is that you asked me in a prior message to respect that your engaging with my criticism and then subsequently made various disrespectful claims about me. Including that I'm in acting bad faith and making may ad-hominem attacks against you. I get that you want the article to be kept because you care about the topic, but arguing in an extremely defensive and petty manor with people who vote delete isn't likely to result in the outcome your looking for. I'm not going to argue with you about it beyond that. Other people can review the references and make their own determinations. Ultimately my "vote" has extremely little weight in the outcome of this. So it's not worth arguing over. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is within guidelines by plenty of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article has plenty of third party sources which is excellent. Article is well written. BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject of this article is backed up by mulitiple, verifiable reliable sources. According to WP:NTEMP once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. It met WP:GNG years ago, and still does. Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep many sources used, but they aren't likely to be recent as the nom suggests, as this is basically a cold case at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Again, it is well-sourced. Severe  storm  28  22:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that there are few to no recent sources doesn't matter: there's no rule that a topic is automatically non-notable just because it isn't still getting as much new coverage in 2022 as it did 15 years ago. And while there are a few sources in the article that aren't suitable or appropriate ("Ottawa Valley Search and Rescue Dog Association"?), there are more than enough that are. In principle, I'm not a fan of the "Wikipedia needs to have a 'disappearance of X' article about every person who's ever been reported missing" approach to article creation, but until there's a clear consensus against them we have to follow the quality and depth and range of the sourcing, and the quality and depth and range of these sources is mostly fine. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there is sustained significant coverage from reliable sources that proves notability. -- Mike 🗩 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (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.