Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The term "routine coverage" is always open to interpretation. Reasonable minds will differ, and reasonable minds have split down the middle here. Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete under WP:NOTNEWS. Article hasn't had any substantial editing or expansion since the last AfD discussion. The story is sad, but the article lacks any larger historical context, and I think it's unlikely that time will provide this additional context/perspective. A simple Google search reveals nothing new since March/April. How is this fundamentally different from any of thousands of other cases? AstroCog (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Keep Which bit of WP:NOTNEWS does this article violate? It's not first-hand account of a breaking event, it's not a routine event, it's not about an individual involved in the story. In other words, the reason given for deletion is not valid.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response It violates #2 in WP:NOTNEWS. All the references for this article are news articles all from within a week's time span of when the story was reported. Since then...nothing. I think it's pretty clear that this is not an "enduring" story, at least not in reliable sources.AstroCog (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for clarification. I have modified my comment accordingly. I still disagree- I think that #2 of WP:NOTNEWS is there to stop articles on minor local events and celeb-related trivia. The case has some unusual features and it isn't a routine event despite what Mean World Syndrome might lead us to believe.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. There are child abductions that take place somewhere in the industrialized world that get significant press coverage almost every day. Does that mean they all get their own articles? An abducted or murdered child, while sad, is not encyclopedic barring some extremely unusual circumstances that make it so (such as in the case of Amy Mihaljevic.) Trusilver  16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response There are obviously unusual circumstances here- the fact that it was a double disappearance, the fact that the case is unsolved, the fact that it took six years for the disappearance of two children in "the industrialized world" to be noticed. That does not happen every day.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Case also mentioned in June 2011 Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Verifiability does not mean notability. While a sad story, the article is unencyclopedic. I also agree that the article fail to pass WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:NOTTEMP. I don't want this to sound anywhere near as harsh as it is going to, but a child abduction, barring other circumstances that would make it so, is not inherently notable. Trusilver  22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Misunderstanding or misapplication of NOTNEWS #2; what we have here can hardly be compared to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Also, there is further news since March/April, even though it doesn't show up in a Google search. --Lambiam 07:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response If a total of six sentences of updated material about the trial of one of the parents involved doesn't count as "routine" coverage, then what is it? What is fundamentally unusual about this case? The parents involved seem crooked, the abduction of the kids is sad, but I still fail to see how this story has a enduring impact giving it a special place in a larger societal context.AstroCog (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Regarding the lack of press coverage: I could be wrong, but I think that there are rules about what the press can say about an ongoing case. That's certainly the case in the UK. The First Amendment makes the situation in the US more complex of course.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - has had more coverage per further news since March/April. Dont see any reason for deletion at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards userify, as this looks like a routine (but tragic) double murder. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stuartyeates's Userfy suggestion if anyone is willing to take the article. I think the nominator's rationale is fair but the article is in good shape and circumstances may change in a way that makes the subject matter indubitably notable in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "userify"/"userfy" mean? Help please! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Reply on my talk page if you like Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy means to delete the article and place the deleted article as a subpage of the creating editor (or anyone else who happens to want it) for improvement and possibly reintegration into the encyclopedia at a later date should something happen to prove notability. Trusilver  11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Tigerboy1966. I should have used an internal link to the WP:USERFY article which explains the process. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:05, 13 October 2011 (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.