Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Robin Graham


 * 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. Opinions are divided about whether the media coverage referenced in the article (from the Los Angeles Times over multiple years) is sufficient coverage to avoid classification as WP:BLP1E.  Sandstein  07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of Robin Graham

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

As was noted in the AfD for Randy Leach see here, there's no notability save her disappearance. Unfortunate as her disappearance was, this article seems to meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E Vertium   (talk to me)  22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. This article has multiple sources and is part of a series of strange disappearances, both in the US and UK. I think by the list of contributors there is plenty of interest to leave the page as it is. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was living in Los Angeles at the time and it got a lot of media attention. Robin Graham's is still cited as one of the more notable of the mysterious disappearance cases as no trace of her has ever been found to this day. A definite keep in my opinion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not doubting that it got media attention, most any disapparance of this nature would. To me the question is... in and of itself, how is her disappearance notable?  Was she notable prior to her disappearance?   Thanks for taking the time to !vote.   Vertium   (talk to me)  14:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The disappearance is notable, or not, on the basis of whether it has gotten ongoing coverage. The article claims that this case has "often been included" in television programs about missing persons. I would like to see some evidence of that; if it is confirmed I will !vote to "keep," because it would fill the requirement for extended coverage over time. Absent such evidence, it should be deleted. As the article currently stands, all the references and links suggest that it was primarily of local and passing interest, except for occasional attempts by her parents and friends to re-call attention to the case. The assertions above, while heartfelt, offer no evidence of the required significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources over time. BTW to user:vertium, she does not have to have been notable prior to her disappearance; the article title makes clear that the article is about her disappearance, not about her. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been unable to come up with any better sources, or to find any evidence that this case was on television shows or in any other ways had any lasting impact. In the absence of evidence of lasting impact - and without in any way questioning the "stated facts" - I must conclude that this is not a notable case. It's tragic but sadly routine. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - pases WP:GNG. sources provides evidence of the stated facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The comment above egarding "local coverage2 is not correct. This case has been quoted in the UK press and is featured on various crime websites.  Best regards, David  David J Johnson (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been waiting to see. Can you provide links? --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MelanieN, Unfortunately, I did not keep a record of the press reports which were at the time of the disappearance of Robin Graham and occasionally since. However, the case is featured on the Doe Network and other crime websites. Also there have been possible links to other cases. I still feel that this article should be kept. With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Warofdreams talk 09:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the event is notable; the references demonstrate that it received significant international coverage. The WP:ONEEVENT policy makes clear that an otherwise unknown individual involved in one notable event may not merit their own article, and consideration should be given to instead writing an article on the event.  That is what has been done here - an excellent example of meeting the spirit and intentions of that policy.
 * "Significant international coverage"? That may be true, but the article does not demonstrate it. All the references at the article are from the Los Angeles Times. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm inclined to side with MelanieN on this. The article appears to fail various parts of WP:EVENT, including WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. All the coverage seems to be from the Los Angeles Times, and I don't see any evidence of the international coverage that has been asserted. Still, the LA Times is a major paper and I can't help but think an event like this would get much more coverage in today's media. Location (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that unlike the case below, this case does not appear to be featured at the website of America's Most Wanted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist comment: While there are a lot of keep votes, a lot of those have been assertions that reliable sources exist somewhere. I've reslisted this to allow people to provide evidence of these sources, and then for a discussion about them to take place. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it has media attention and we have the roomLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search of the online Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature for (robin graham), with dates from November 1970 through December 1975, yields zero hits.  A search of Time magazine's |BTWN+19701101+19751231 archives for (robin graham), with the same date restrictions, yields four hits, none of which appear to concern the subject of this article.  Searching Google News Archives for ("robin graham") yields a number of Los Angeles Times articles, but nothing indicative of wider media attention.  I'm afraid that this fails WP:GEOSCOPE.  Ammodramus (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still of the opinion that this article is within the WP:GNG. I think users here are grasping for straws and have too high notability requirements. Obviously this article subject has recieved a fair amount of press. Being featured in America's Most Wanted or not is not a deal breaker.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. But being covered by only a single source (the Los Angeles Times) may be. The guidelines require significant coverage from MULTIPLE independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand that a newspaper continously follows a case is a indication of not another run of the mill case. And also the LA Times isnt exactly a small local newspaper but a renowned publication with a huge reader-circle. Still strawman-arguments in my opinion from the ones wanting this article deleted, with way to high notability requirements a indication of wanting this article deleted at any cost as seen so many times on AfDs. sorry to say. I am still of a Keep opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets requirements for continual coverage and has even been features on TV programming. Stedrick (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tried to find online archives going back to 1970 for several major California papers: the San Diego papers, the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, and the Sacramento Bee.  No luck with any of these.
 * A number of "Keep" !votes here have stated nothing more than "has received media attention" or "has been featured on TV". This is argument by assertion.  Could some interested editors in major non-L.A. metro areas hit their local libraries and check their 1970-1975 newspapers for coverage of this?  Negative evidence would be useful: lack of coverage in major metropolitan dailies would strengthen the presumption of non-notability.  Ammodramus (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Her disappearance is the reason the California Highway Patrol procedure concerning stranded female motorists was changed. The CHP now has to remain with the stranded motorist until she gets proper assistance. Also this incident is documented on my website, http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/victim_graham.html and there are other sites mentioning this event also. TZMC (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your website is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines, however, I would be interested in seeing some evidence of the assertion that the CHP changed their procedures due to this case. Do you have source for this? Location (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * within the article the change is cited to ""WILL INCREASE AID TO WOMEN:CHP Alters Freeway Policy After Disappearance of Girl", Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File). Los Angeles, Calif.:Dec 12, 1970. p. a1 (2 pp.)" although I am not finding it. It would need to be verified that someone actually attributes the change to this incident and not just that the policy was changed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has multi references and I see no reason whatsoever for its deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Johnson (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As I previously stated this case is notable and has possible connections to other cases. In the past it has had coverage in the UK, as well as the US - although I greatly regret not saving the references, but this was long before Wikipedia.


 * This incident is also on my webpage http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/car_abductions.html that was first put online on February 17, 2004 and updated on June 3, 2008. TZMC (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * your website however does not meet our requirements of being a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * does anyone have access to verify what is in here Comité de México y Aztlán, 1974 - Social Science -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the byline includes "Times Staff Writer"; this and the casual reference to Riverside leads me to suspect that it ran in the Los Angeles Times. A Google search for ("robert kistler" "los angeles" times) indicates that a Robert Kistler was writing for the Times in 1970.  Ammodramus (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:NOTNEWS, among other reasons. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of anything which has been reported on ever, anywhere. Trusilver  19:25, 21 July 2012 (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.