Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Maya Millete


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Disappearance of Maya Millete

 * – ( View AfD View log )

NOT NEWS. possible speedy or at least snow.  DGG ( talk ) 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, but I hope they find her safe and sound. AdoTang (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope they find her safe and sound too. It's great that you are showing compassion for this person. I know many people who lack that quality. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "Keep" outcome would need more people supporting the outcome more strongly, while the "delete" outcome would need more support from those commenting post-reference to new coverage since the AFD began.
 * Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify - While I think I agree that the article doesn't currently qualify for inclusion, there's quite a bit of coverage already regarding this disappearance, including from non-local news outlets and publications that I wouldn't necessarily expect to see here. (see e.g.,, , , . So, while I understand the rationale for deletion, I think there's at least some chance that this subject matter could qualify in the coming months if things change. So I vote we move this to draft space for now and see what happens. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as I do with this reasons given that this article could be viable. The article DOES need more sources though for sure. If more could be added I may be willing to change my weak keep stance. I have now slightly expanded it in length. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems to reach the threshold, but just. But also per rationale of Davidgoodheart. BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or userfy - there has been saturation coverage online this weekend, for a woman of color, which is unusual in itself. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. If article can be expanded beyond incomplete almost stub status. Significant news coverage as per Wikipedia:Notability.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This article has been expanded by me and others as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinions are still split, more input would be appreciated.
 * Keep, this article has been expanded and has received lots of coverage and is indeed viable, so I have now changed my stance. The expansion of the article is still continuing as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS. Kolma8 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I often read Wikipedia's articles on old disappearances, because I find them fascinating. We often cover the background of the person who disappeared, the circumstances leading up to the disappearance, theories on what happened, and the impact of the disappearance on society. Here we have nothing of the sort. Just a bare bones stub. I frankly do not see anything worth keeping here. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on news coverage, background needs significantly expanding however. Copper1993 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Changing my stance to Keep. Per expansion, per extensive coverage. At this time it covers WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, how does this meet WP:NEVENT ie. has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time? looks like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete For something that has only started quite recently, it has an enormous amount of coverage, but it is one event. It worth noting that people dissapear all the time. It is quite a stupidly high metric. Changed from weak-keep to delete.  scope_creep Talk  19:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the statistics for 2018, approximately 70 people disappear every hour in the United States. So it is an extremely granular category of event, and trying to prove the article is notable is an almost impossible task. Not in 100 pages of A4 could it be done.  scope_creep Talk  19:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify unless there are significant developments that would make this case particularly notable it can be moved to draft for further expansion as and when more facts come to light. (I was asked to comment here), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are lots of news coverage and sources, and there are current sources even 4 months after her disappearance. CountyCountry (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (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.