Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Danielle Stislicki


 * 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) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of Danielle Stislicki

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails applicable notability criteria, namely EVENT. Also seems to fall under the pillar policy NOT John from Idegon (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete It's the disappearance of one person. If it was drastically different to the vast majority of disappearance cases (such as the events surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann) it may be notable. However it isn't, so it needs deleting. Stui (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * delete Unresolved disappearances like this are a hard case for WP because, by their nature, they generate news reports over a long period. But unless one is willing to argue that all such cases are notable, this comes across as routine local coverage of such an event. So it's another case of WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - There may be news reports on this case, but that is nothing unusual. It is routine, it is news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing makes a better case for this outcome at this point than this line: News of the case loomed large over the metropolitan Detroit area, but did not receive much national coverage. You might as well just come right out and write "This story is not notable as of January 2018." I'd also take note that every source cited comes from the same local Detroit website. Should it get national attention, which it well may, then it can be recreated. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news. As an avid listener to WJR I have heard her name more than most people, and am sure there is nothing but routine news coverage here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally choose to abstain from the debate due to my personal interest and bias with cases of this nature, but I would like to point out that there are a variety of sources and media coverage for this case, which implies notability, in my opinion. If this article is to be deleted, I would certainly like to see it be recreated if there is any resolution to the case. It does appear that the current person of interest/suspect is a potential serial killer and could perhaps have his own article on the site if the suspicions of his guilt are corroborated by forensic evidence. If a murder or manslaughter charge is brought upon him and if he was to be convicted without the presence of her body, the case would be notable, as a conviction of this type without a body doesn't happen often in the United States.--  Gourami Watcher Talk 06:21, 2 February 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.