Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Susan Powell


 * 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. v/r - TP 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of Susan Powell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Standard missing person case, without any national or international attention. (Sadly one of 2000 dissappearances per day in the US alone). Article is written like a news report. No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sourcing alone shows that the case has recieved alot of coverage. was one of those "major" disappearances when it happen.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly why we have guidelines like NOTTHENEWS. It was major when it happened, and it still is very tragic, but that does not give it any lasting notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lasting notability? How do you expect that a crime-story gets coverage if their is no new leads?. But that doesnt change the fact that it has reached alot of coverage and news over the years. Its like saying Mischa Bartons article should be deleted just because she hasnt done any films or been alot in the media for a few year.?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is definitly one of those cases were an arrest or new big elad with be on the front page of newspapers and news on the news channels so thats enough for me to keep on saying Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards a Keep if the article is organised just a little bit more. It definitely has the necessary references but they need formatting. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete --very sad. But it just doesn't meet the notability requirements needed for an event like this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because an article need a touch-up doesnt mean it should be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There clearly are more than two sources of information here and original source material as well as secondary material from which an article can be written. The "lasting notability" is due to the fact that this story doesn't seem to want to die and keeps getting reported, including some headlines just within the past week or so.  If there are notability requirements for something of this nature.... specify them.  Certainly this topic satisfies WP:NOTE and other general notability requirements and goes well beyond a normal obituary.  That the story may be somewhat local in scope does not disqualify it from notability standards.  Also note:  The formatting of the article or the quality of the text has not merit at all in terms of establishing notability or why an article must be deleted or not.  Single sentence stubs can exist on Wikipedia that simply need the attention of somebody willing to expand those stubs.  Complaints about formatting is more the province of the WP:SOFIXIT policy.  --Robert Horning (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Robert Horning - ongoing interest shows that it's not ONEEVENT. Bearian (talk)
 * Keep per WP:Notability - the subject was object of significant coverage, which as WP:Notability states: "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
 * Furthermore, WP:GNG goes on to state "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected"; we currently have 13 reliable sources, all news organizations and most of them national/national-affiliated major news organizations. As to those who say this is a local, not a national story, they must not have been paying attention, because the only way I heard about it (living in California) was through national media, as could be shown by something like this.
 * Also, as WP:Notability states, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, this article does have recent, ongoing coverage (Huffpo and Fox and SL Trib just to name a few, so even that weak argument is invalid. Moogwrench (talk) 02:53, 7 August 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.