Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Susan Smalley and Stacie Madison


 * 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. bd2412 T 19:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of Susan Smalley and Stacie Madison

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this isn't any more than just a run-of-the-mill disappearance case. Very tragic, but tragically not really uncommon; about 2,300 Americans are reported missing each day. References, many of which may be unreliable don't appear to be much more than typical routine coverage. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable. However this one has continued coverage.. Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. RF23 (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sustained coverage. WP:CRIME. BabbaQ (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Icewhiz's sources. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  12:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I don't believe the sources available are showing a lasting impact on these particular disappearances. If you google "Susan Smalley and Stacie Madison" you get some news hits, per Icewhiz above, but they are local and sporadic, not sustained, in the vein of "whatever happened to...?" stories that will pop up. It's difficult to assess these sort of articles without sounding callous but I'm not seeing anything that makes these disappearances particularly notable and having a lasting impact (changed laws or attitudes or renewed focus, etc.). I say weak delete because although there are sources, they're not convincing per WP:LASTING or WP:DEPTH. Having said that, it's weak delete because a result of keep for this article would certainly not be detrimental to Wikipedia.  freshacconci  (✉) 16:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Remove the headers from this "article" and we have a genuine copy of a news piece. Sure, some coverage exists, but as Freshacconci actually took the time to analyze, the context and duration of the coverage are significant. We find sources sporadically published, but they are mainly just "Missing...x years later" without any actual substance or lasting significance. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This has a lot of coverage, there's even a book written about it.★Trekker (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a self-published book from Lulu.com a vanity press.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see.★Trekker (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do note, however, that according to an INDEPTH Dallas Morning News article now added to the article, the self-published book caused the Police Department - and also the police in the adjacent county - to renew the investigation: new detectives, new theories, a new search for evidence. (Not that they found much.) Case is still "open". E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, well known disappearance, totally worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only was coverage at the time INDEPTH, coverage has been ONGOING with INDEPTH stories - 2 of which have now been added to the page that were published in 1988 and 2010. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see any sources that aren't local, and indeed some we should not be using as sources at all (Websleuths threads ... really?) Since there are thousands of missing-person cases out there, we need to limit ourselves to writing about those cases that get some level of national coverage, i.e. a Disappeared episode or coverage outside the area in which this occurred. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What sets this article apart is the ongoing nature of the coverage, which includes some intl., national and Texas coverage beyond the Dallas/Ft.Worth metro ares (a metro area bigger than most member states of the U.N.), coverage has continued on this decades old case. A (self-published) book on the case got local/regional coverage, plus - and this is unusual - caused police to launch a new/renewed investigation of a very old, cold case. Article can be improved both by adding more of the coverage that exists, and by deleting the non-reliable sources flagged by Daniel Case. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While it is certainly interesting that a self-published book about the case triggered a renewed investigation, that fact alone does not get it above the notability threshold. In searching on this case, I am actually surprised, given the high degree of local attention, that none of the US TV network magazine shows like 20/20 or 48 Hours have done a segment on it, as they have on many other such disappearances (the fact that the case is 30 years old may, I agree, not help this). I don't know if that's because they haven't considered it or did and decided not to, but that really doesn't matter in this discussion. Once the case gets that kind of coverage, we can have this article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is sustained ongoing coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the coverage ongoing when the last few segments were from early 2017 -- the typical "We still have hope..." news pieces? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As they disappeared in 1988, 2017 would be ongoing. So would 2011. We still have hope pieces are not routine - the vast majority missing people are simply forgotten media wise. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2018 (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.