Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haleigh Cummings


 * 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   delete. Delete arguments, apart from being more numerous, also appear to be more convincing. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Haleigh Cummings

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Standard missing person case, one of tens of thousands worldwide. No individual notability about this case. Article added by single purpose user. Some potentially libelous statements. NPOV. Dmol (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article seems to be more in a need of a re-write than deletion. I get 1 200 000 hits when searching for Hayleigh Cummings on google.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I got over 800k hits on my search, some of which are recent news stories from major network affiliates, os I would say it's notable. Your other arguments for deletion are not valid. Libelous staements are themselves not a criteron for deletion; you should be bold and change them.  Also, if the article doesn't have a NPOV; you should be bold and change it.  That alone is not a criteron for deletion. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The number of internet hits is not a valid criteria. [See notabililty of people]
 * Comment - That 'single-purpose' editor, Allycat1208, referenced by nom above, creates and edits articles on murdered and missing children. I'll take that bit of argument for deletion by assuming good faith and say that I don't think there is anything wrong with being a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia. Roodog2k (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the writer of this article, and after reviewing it I agree it was not well-written. It was the first article that I wrote and put "live" I believe and I was just starting to learn about citing references, tables, etc.  I'm trying to rewrite it now and put better references in it, if you want to hold off deleting it and reviewing it again. I do think it is notable because much news has been generated about all who were involved in this case.  Allycat1208 (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENT. Also SPA issues should be addressed, and we should uphold WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEMORIAL.--Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Relisting to allow all users time to re-evaluate newer version. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Coverage has continued for 2 or 3 years. Meets our guidelines.  Article should be renamed "Dissapearance of HC" or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)  Neutral per comment directly below.  It still meets our rules for notability, but maybe BLP says it doesn't since it's so much about the drug arrests. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the original writer of this article and I rewrote it. I think I did a better job writing it this time.  The article is basically about a missing child investigation that went nowhere since inception.  The reason it has gotten media cover for the last few years since the child went missing is that most of the family members of the victim were implicated and charged in drug crimes after the child disappeared.  Its basically 2 issues: a missing child investigation and about what happened to the family and their involvement in drug crimes.  After reading notability requirements, as to my understanding, I agree it may not be notable but as I'm new to wikipedia I'm probably not the best judge on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allycat1208 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no general public history. I'm  reluctant to delete on the basis of oneevent, but this is a case for it. the extreme detail of the article indicate the non-encyclopedic nature.   DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * for me personally I stand by my Keep as it was both her disappearance in itself but also publizied arrests in the case. making this article pass ONEEVENT. Also seems like a odd reason for deletion that the article brings up extreme details, lets remove that instead of deleting it for that reason.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also a high number of hits on Google search. Strong indication that this isnt just "another disappearance".--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Much of the "coverage" relates to arrests for drug crimes of and disparaging speculation about the child's family members. Family members should be treated as WP:NPF.    Sharktopus  talk  01:40, 26 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.