Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No direct evidence of notability. No sign that this is any more than just a run of the mill disappearance case (about 2,300 Americans are reported missing each day). References are mostly typical news reports and routine coverage, no indication of any lasting impact, such as a change in a law or procedure, which is usually used as a yardstick for notability in these cases. Very tragic, but tragically not that uncommon. (See also, WP:MURDEROF) Bneu2013 (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable. However this one has continued coverage for over 20 years..Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Icewhiz are right, we do individual evaluations of articles notability. Clearly here the subject has recieved coverage over a twenty year period. BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, is sourced enough to be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. purely routine. The policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE.  DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Based on the current sourcing in the article, it easily passes WP:GNG. This topic has received significant coverage in secondary sources over the course of decades. NBC did an article on her just last year. Her disappearance was featured in an episode of the TV show Find Our Missing. Lonehexagon (talk)
 * Keep as per WP:SIGCOV, and the fact that coverage extends over many years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Another tragic, but routine disappearance. We can't have an article on every crime or disappearance that been featured on America's Most Wanted or the Investigation Discovery channel. It easy to say that there's been recent coverage, but you have to look at the context of that coverage. It's routine, its not as if there has been new developments in the case or its considered the crime of century.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing of interest here, move on people... Unfortunately, cases like these are a dime a dozen. DGG nails it: NOT INDISCRIMINATE. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that the standard is not whether this was "considered the crime of century" or whether the case seems "routine" to Wikipedia editors.  The standards are WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME, and this case has had ONGOING INDEPTH coverage, and this 1994 crime has bben covered for decades.  CNN, 2009: Honors student leaves doctor's office, disappears; NBC News, 2017 [Another Mother’s Day Passes as Laurell Hall Searches for Her Daughter Cleashindra.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP I agree with Icewhiz. Getting coverage for over 20 years proves notability.  D r e a m Focus  18:51, 14 March 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.