Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaeyaena Beuraheng


 * 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. WP:BLP1E Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Jaeyaena Beuraheng

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I PROD'd this in April for the following reason: Single-event BLP article of an otherwise low-profile individual. No lasting effects as a result of this occurrence - no policies, laws, or customs arose as a result of this. This is undeniably newsworthy (or was at the time), but it is not encyclopedic.

PROD was declined: Prod declined, but feel free to AFD. It's stretching WP:BLP1E to breaking point to claim it when the "one event" in question was 25 years long

I disagree. Essentially, this woman was briefly newsworthy for re-appearing after being missing for 25 years. Her brief newsworthiness arose from her being found, not from the entire 25 years she was gone. Otherwise, she is a low-profile individual of no particular note. There is no ongoing coverage in any available media of her or her situation. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  15:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a case where the focus should should be on the event (her becoming lost and re-discovery) rather than the individual. That said, I don't see any indication that the case has generated any WP:LASTING long-term significance. Personally though I think it'd be a shame to have to delete this article; it's an interesting encyclopaedic topic which may actually be revisited in wider discourse in the future. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk   15:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel that WP:BLP1E does apply here. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2017 (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.