Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily


 * 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. The few "keeps" (some of them self-described as weak) didn't go into as much detail on why they deemed the sources sufficient as others presented a much stronger and well-explained case that the sources are insufficient to make the subject meet our inclusion threshold. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about two missing people not officially pronounced or confirmed dead (and hence WP:BLP should still apply), largely sourced to local news reports. A search for additional sources turns up little more than same. Madeleine McCann this is not. I think for an event such as this we really should err on this side of caution; in particular things like a claim for illegally growing cannabis, sourced to the Anderson Valley Advertiser are a serious concern. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Despite the false assumption above, both men are officially considered missing, as can be verified at http://www.mendocinosheriff.com/missing/Georgejdorner (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP, considered broadly, probably applies to Cavanaugh and Neily despite their disappearance, but it most certainly applies to Denoyer, who not only hasn't been charged in connection with the disappearances, but was acquitted of the one charge (animal cruelty) actually filed against him -- not that you'd learn that from the lead! The sources used are not the high-quality sources needed to support negative BLP portrayals such as this. Some are not RS at all, and I question the "independence" of small-town papers offering sympathetic viewpoints to the family of a missing person. I don't think this rises to the level of a G10 attack page on Denoyer, but I do think that BLP policy mandates its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by the claim that there is derogatory content concerning the disappeared men. I wish you would point it out so I can correct it. As for Denoyer, I have added to the article to emphasize his being acquitted on animal cruelty charges, and that he has not been charged in the disappearances. I have not mentioned he is a Person of Interest to the Mendocino Sheriff's Department in these disappearances--even though he is.
 * I am even more puzzled that MediaNews Group newspapers such as the Ukiah Daily Journal and Fort Bragg Advocate-News are not considered reliable sources. I realize that the Anderson Valley Advertiser is a different matter. However, to the best of my knowledge (and I am a longtime reader), the AVA has never been sued for libel or slander despite being quite outspoken. So, I would ask, where are the unreliable sources? Or are you saying we can't trust the Huffington Post and/or CBS News?
 * If you can be specific, I may be able to deal with the problem.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask Squeamish Ossifrage about specific sources, but the basic point is that just being verifiable to reliable sources isn't enough for an article sometimes, it also has to be suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly one that is well known for getting a volley of complaints (both legal and otherwise) from all over the world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have toned down the statement about marijuana cultivation so that it pertains to the area rather than just to Denoyer's ranch. I have also added language to stress that Mr. Denoyer was acquitted of animal cruelty charges, and that he has never been charged with any crime pertaining to the disappearances. I am unaware of any furtherf deleterious information.
 * I deserve an opportunity to correct the article if it has problems. If a vague and unsupported accusation of "unsuitability" suffices to delete an article, most of WP's articles are subject to arbitrary deletion.
 * All things considered, you'll probably have an easier time writing articles on another topic than trying to defend one that other people think violates the core policy of BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If there were BLP violations in the article I might tend to agree with you. However, false calls of BLP violation are not grounds for deletion.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for having been occupied away from the project and not returning here to comment further more quickly. However, I don't appreciate the accusation that my BLP concerns over this article are "false calls"; they are not. I'll try to keep this response brief, although if there's a desire for a more in-depth examination of the problems, I can do that too. In short, the sourcing is not high quality. The Charley Project is not a reliable source whatsoever. The Anderson Valley Advertiser article is a local article, in a weekly tabloid paper, in tabloid tone, and is not a reliable source for BLP-related concerns (or, probably, anything else). The other two newspaper articles are local-interest stories in small, local papers (their ownership by a national holding company does not change that character), which, among other things, are not generally considered to speak to notability (all, or most, missing persons are reported on locally and in local papers; not all missing persons cases are considered "notable" in Wikipedia's unique use of that term). The NBC "Missing in America" source gives every impression of not being independent reporting; it is not bylined, and is in large part dedicated to a personal video made by a family member of one of the subjects. HuffPo is a better source than the rest, but HuffPo's quality varies from contributor to contributor and topic to topic and should be evaluated with caution despite being generally accepted as reliable. But all that aside, this article is rife with BLP concerns. I'll blockquote policy here:

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction."
 * The bulk of this article does precisely that. Phrasings such as "Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money."; "Denoyer accused Cavanaugh of theft, and dropped his 63-year-old penniless disabled uncle in the San Francisco Airport."; and "He claimed that if he had been called to testify in the animal cruelty case, Denoyer would have been convicted and the elder Neily spared his fate." should probably be removed immediately as BLP violations (especially given the source quality)! Specific sentences aside, the entire article is written with the implication that Denoyer was responsible, and our policy simply does not permit that. That's the essence of the BLP policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, me, Mr/Ms Ossifrage...where to begin?
 * "Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money." went by the board when I edited out the Charley Project cites. Your Charley Project complaint has been addressed.
 * I fail to see how Denoyer's accusation of theft, or his taking his uncle to the airport, can be construed as a crime. In source material, but not in the article, is the fact that Denoyer held his uncle at gunpoint to force him to go to SFO. As pointing a firearm at someone is a crime in California, I chose not to mention it because it was never charged.
 * As next of kin, Ryan Neily is entitled to his opinion about Denoyer. I quoted him to show how investigation of this cold case continues because he is pressuring the authorities. Ryan Neily's
 * Somehow, you haven't seemed to have noticed that I peppered the article with information that stated Louis Denoyer's innocence.
 * Denoyer has never been charged in connection with the disappearances; he was acquitted on the animal cruelty counts. Last sentence of lead. Not strictly true. Denoyer pled guilty to a charge of improperly disposing of a dead animal carcass; the court placed restrictions on his future ownership of horses. However, as it now stands, the sentence clearly states he is innocent. I excised the petty conviction out of respect for BLP policy.
 * Sergeant Jason Caudillo of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office followed up on Neily's disappearance with a search of the Westport ranch with cadaver dogs. They alerted on a pet's grave, but nothing else. Caudillo admits he found no direct witness or physical evidence of a crime on the Westport ranch. Last para of Neily's disappearance. A reluctant official statement of Denoyer's innocence, but I can only quote what is said.
 * James Denoyer claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances. Last sentence in article. This is the only statement of Denoyer's that I found. I gave him the last word.
 * If there is a consensus on newspapers being unreliable sources, I wish you would link me to it. I mean a true consensus, not your solo version. As it is, I use these papers for other writing projects of mine. From long experience, I know these newspapers are reliable. We don't have big city papers out here because we don't have big cities. However, if you take the New York Times as the gold standard for news sources, guess what? Every one of the newspapers in this article has been used, at one time or another, as a source for Times stories. You see, the professional journalists at the Times believe they are reliable.


 * Keep - per WP:GNG. Per extensive and good sources. It seems to be more a situation were the article needs to be improved or rewritten, but DYK is not used to establish article quality, it is about the article subjects notability. Two different things.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the best source in this article? I define a good source as a book that has had sustained and critically acclaimed reviews from subject experts. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While your personal definition of a good source excludes all use of newspapers as reliable sources, it does not match that of WP. The article is entitled to an evaluation by WP standards. With one possible exception, all newspapers used are main stream media by major news organizations.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Suitability? How can WP find such subjects as porn stars suitable, but not the disappearance of two human beings? Sorry, but the suitability argument is nonsensical.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A very good question; personally I'd delete the whole bally lot of them if I was in charge but unfortunately I seem to in a minority of men who dislike porn to the point of feeling nauseous about it so I have to defer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm afraid. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. People disappear all the time. There's nothing that raises these particular instances above the rest. It also casts aspersions on a living, uncharged person, Denoyer, as noted above. Even if they were found to have been murdered, not the case here, it still would likely not justify an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Single disappearances are common. However, this is the only example I know of where two people consecutively vanished from the same place, which is a notable difference.
 * The accusation is made that I am "casting aspersions" on Louis Denoyer. Where? Please point out the problem areas. I dealt with the first examples, but now the accusation seems to have become an amorphous cloud of blame, unsupported by evidence. If specifics were noted, I might be able to satisfactorily rewrite the examples given. That is, if there are any specifics.
 * As noted above, there are three specific instances where the article clearly states that Denoyer was cleared of criminal activity.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As Clarityfriend notes, I question whether there's sufficient notability here even if the article were free of BLP concerns, but BLP is the more important problem. Policy simply does not permit an article to make negative implications about a living person with poor sourcing, even if you then say something to the extent of "But he wasn't charged for any of that." And make no mistake, the sourcing for the negative implications is poor, even when it is sourced to an article that is probably a RS for general purposes. How? Here's an example. As of this version of the article, this text appears: The bedroom he had been promised was a mattress tossed in the rear of a junk truck. He needed rides into town for food and medicine, but Denoyer refused them. Cavanaugh's son called him from Illinois, and sensed there was something wrong in his father's situation. Cavanaugh seemed too nervous to render any explanations, although he hinted at nefarious deeds afoot. That is cited to the HuffPo article. But if we go read the HuffPo article, we see that's actually based exclusively on a direct quote from Ryan Neily. Neily is entitled to his opinions and his version of past events, and is under no obligation to maintain a neutral point or view. HuffPo doesn't make those claims in its voice, they merely repeat the quote. But this article then presents those claims as if they were established facts, in the encyclopedia's voice. That's an NPOV problem and it's a BLP compliance problem. And that's how much of the article is written. Even when it cites a reliable source, it does so largely based on the quoted statements of the individuals involved, not the reporting in that source's editorial voice, and then it repeats those claims in the project's voice. I recognize that we disagree here, but I think the history of responses at the BLP noticeboard makes it very clear that policy simply doesn't permit this sort of thing. I'm not really interested in engaging on this topic further here (and this isn't really the place for a nuanced discussion of the editorial requirements of the BLP policy), but I'm steadfast in my opinion that this article does not satisfy policy expectations, and that simple rewording cannot fix it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument was made above that disappearances are commonplace. Undeniably true, but two disappearances in a row from the same place is notably unusual. I don't know of another case of double disappearances from the same place.
 * Now that I have received detailed feedback on BLP complaints, I have been rewriting the objectionable sentences. I also found a bit more I could change to honor BLP. If you still have any objections, please let me know.
 * I have read these local newspapers for years. I would not depend on them for national or international news; they just run wire copy. However, for local news, they are extremely reliable. These papers are not stepping stones to a big city job; our local journalists hang around for years and decades. They know this county.
 * On the other hand, I doubt that you have ever read a copy of any of these papers before this article. You can't really know whether a paper you have never read is reliable or not. An argument based on ignorance is not very persuasive.
 * Let me end by noting that the most recent text of the article should be the subject of discussion. Past edits are just that--past.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:DEL9 and WP:NOTNEWS. The BLP issues are concerning here and are not negotiable. Simple speculation should not be covered in an encyclopaedia, particularly in cases where the event itself may not be notable. I am also struggling to see the WP:LASTING effects and WP:PERSISTENCE which makes me believe this is not notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lemongirl, I am going to repeat my request that pro-deletionists point out specific problems for correction. There is such a thing as WP:ATD--although you all seem to be unaware of it or determined to ignore it. I say that because none of you have showed any signs of having noticed the ongoing changes I have made in accordance with WP:ATD. And there it says: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases." Of course, in this case, ATD is being crippled by vague accusations without feedback.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- this appears to be an attack page on James Denoyer as the article omuniously concludes:
 * [He] claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances.[6]
 * Neither does the article discuss any long-term societal impact. This appears to be standard crime blotter material, and not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep The BLP concerns are not a reason to delete—the article can and should be rewritten. And while I would like to see an example of non-trivial coverage from outside Central California in addition to the Huffington Post, I must admit, as the primary contributor to a number of missing-person case articles, that this is not a typical case of such. Two similar people disappearing from the same place (or near it) under similar circumstances? I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here I would argue that the notability from that aspect alone is similar to that of Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos (which does have more solid sourcing, I agree). Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * MAJOR REVISION BY NOMINATOR I have rewritten the article extensively and removed Denoyer from the story. This means there can no longer be any merit to BLP complaints concerning this article. And, as I have added text denoting these are active missing persons investigations, there are ongoing impacts on society.
 * This rewrite is extensive enough that any recommendations based on the previous text need serious re-evaluation.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Clearly a case with enduring interest. Covered in WP:RS like the Huffington Post years after the event, has demonstrated  WP:PERSISTENCE. Per WP:EASYTARGET, BLP concerns are not an argument for deletion since, as this case demonstrates, they can be dealt with through our usual processes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; <b style="color:blue">Democratics</b> <b style="color:red">Talk</b> 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. At the end of the day this is just a news story and we are WP:NOTNEWS. People disappear all the time, the media write about them, but that doesn't mean we have to. I don't see how this story is important to anybody other than the people involved in it directly.  Sandstein   08:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted above in posts that Sandstein seems not to have read, consecutive disappearances are notably unusual and have been covered by WP. If Sandstein's claim is corrected to cover the actual circumstance of this article, it is, "People vanish consecutively from the same place all the time." Obviously, this is not so.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "People disappear all the time, ..." Inadvertent paraphrases of Monty Python are not the best AfD arguments, no matter how much of a smile they bring to the face. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Just a news story". Like Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination. (Per WP:WHOCARES) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * weak keep national-level coverage (HP, NBC) of this mean we have met all relevant notability guidelines. The fact that said coverage happened years after the event, tips it in.  I'm a bit more mixed on WP:NOTNEWS, thus the weak part.  Hobit (talk)
 * Delete. I looked at the sources in the article.  About half of them are clearly unsuitable for establishing WP:N.  Three looked promising, so I examined them in more detail:
 * Anderson Valley Advertiser. Self-described as a small-town weekly, which publishes, among the news of local fire district controversies and county supervisor meetings -- some of the most imaginative and well-written articles and stories found in the American press.   We're not looking for imaginative stories.
 * Fort Bragg Advocate-News. Another small-town weekly, reporting on what's essentially a local human-interest story.
 * Huffington Post. This is the only one of the sources that's really worth-while.  A substantial article in a national publication.  If there were a few more like this, we'd be good.  But, it's just not enough by itself.
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2016 (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.