Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (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 speedy keep. the wub "?!"  12:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Very tragic, but kids get kidnapped every day, she's just not notable. Karaku (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, for those wishing to comment, this article was the subject of a prior AFD, Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the result of which was "Keep", and the discussion was closed as a snowball after about 1 day. Other than to note that, I am officially neutral.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the nom, AfD notes show up properly now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has 185 references. Am I missing something here? Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, you didn't miss anything. Its here, so discuss.  Remember, I am neutral (see above) but yes, you are techincally correct. There are 185 references.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'll discuss then. Karaku, can you elaborate on how you believe this fails WP:N? Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous discussion. Nom doesn't seem to be properly researched. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no problem with verifiability, notability, or anything else within this article -- heck, it's made GA status. But even if it weren't, I'd still argue keep, as I see no lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Obviously notable.  Lara  ❤  Love  05:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep - yes, all abductions are sad and there are unfortunately many of them. But very very few get the media attention of this one. matt91486 (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Look, I fail to see how she's notable. There hasn't been alot of media coverage in MONTHS. She's not notable. Explain to me what makes her different from any other kidnapped kid. -Karaku (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:N? Doctorfluffy (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "kids get kidnapped every day, she's just not notable"?!?! Have you read the news, or watched TV in the past few months? If not, have you read the article? Notability could not be more clearly established. Alansohn (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- There's been nothing in the news for months now. She's not notable. -Karaku (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. Please read the policy. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree and speedy keep. I know I've heard her mentioned on the TV news here, and there are some recent Google news hits to refute your "nothing in the news for months now" claim. I will, however, acknowledge that once some time lapses she'll sink into the vague memories of a kid that disappeared, but I don't think we've reached that point yet. Nor will we until such time as the case is settled. Travellingcari (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, same as the previous AfD. Jfire (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep, because notability is not temporary. It doesn't matter if there's never another media mention of this case ever again; during the time that it was active, it was covered extensively and exhaustively, and in greater depth than most kidnappings. Thus, it is notable, and it will remain so indefinitely. Wikipedia covers many subjects that are no longer current. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Very substantial coverage in reliable sources establishing notability. Also note coverage is still continuing - a search on google news shows over 1,000 current articles. Davewild (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course there are objections. Not every crime is notable. News/recentism. We don't have a standard for the notability of crimes, though, and I can't think of any reasonable standard in which this would not be included, given the coverage which is both broad and deep, as well as continuing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination, is this a joke? --Canley (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep A Google web search for "madeleine mccann" turns up well over a million results. While public and media interest may have peaked somewhat after September 2007, it has been both exceptional and sustained. (Google news results still total more than 1,500 for the last month alone.) The article is well researched and written - with more than an adequate number of reliable, secondary sources to satisfy any notability test. Notability is not temporary, and so there should be no further need for evidence of continued coverage. For further explanation, see previous debates (such as the first AfD nomination and a couple of discussions on the article's talk page). Error -128 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * snowball keep- not "just" a local kid who got kidnapped for an afternoon or something. For whatever reason, received protracted media coverage in several countries. Karaku, if you want to check if something is notable relatively quickly, people are using google news and looking at how many entries there are. A lot of subjects only have a few. There are 2005 on a first-glance search for Madeleine McCann!:)  Merkinsmum  12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - non-notable ? --B. C  say what ? 12:08, 10 February 2008 (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.