Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Julie Weflen


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Disappearance of Julie Weflen

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

I am unable to find evidence that is a notable missing persons' case. Coverage is limited to possible updates, none of which have panned out. The lack of a locker search doesn't make it stand out, unfortunately. Star  Mississippi  13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This looks like re-analysis with significant, in-depth coverage: Missing on the job (Spokesman-Review, 2007, also stating, "it was Weflen who received national attention, thanks largely to her husband’s efforts."), and this is ongoing coverage: Friend Helps Give 1987 Spokane Cold Case A Fresh Look (KHQQ6, 2011), Reward Offered In 1987 Disappearance Of BPA's Julie Weflen (KHQQ6, 2012) Portland native still missing after 27 years; family, friends hope for answers (KATU2, 2015). Early reporting by UPI was published in the Los Angeles Times: Disappeared From Remote Power Substation Near Spokane : Determined Husband Keeps Searching, Insists Missing Wife Still Lives (1987). I think the article could be expanded with additional sources; unsolved cases can generate sustained and sometimes significant coverage, and this article appears to be supported by both. Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, Article is well sourced and has ongoing coverage. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - not at all a run of the mill disappearance as this has coverage that has gone for 30 years of the disappearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The "ongoing coverage" in this case is primary news prompted by the family and friends of the disappeared. That's commonplace for disappearances, even decades after the fact. Star Garnet (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Copying comment from talk where wrote Keep - per the Charley Project entry ... "The true crime author Ann Rule included a chapter about Weflen's abduction in her 2004 book, Kiss Me, Kill Me.". Just want to be sure it's not missed by closing admin.  Star   Mississippi  14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per above linked continuing coverage. There was also an independently published true crime book about the case published in 2020, but I wouldn't say that's the strongest source. Still, the coverage as a whole is significant enough to meet WP:NCRIME. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:52, 1 March 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.