Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Kopetsky


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kara Kopetsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A disputed speedy. The story of this victim of crime seems to be of purely localised interest and not notable to the extent that would be required; fairly clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. The article's talk page suggests that the assertion of non-notability is "heartless"; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten the exact reference but have now located the specific policy that governs this situation, at WP:VICTIM; I don't see anything anywhere that suggests that Ms. Kopetsky could have been the subject of a Wikipedia article before her disappearance. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it then not better to rename the article to "Kara Kopetsky disappearance" since the article would be about the case (which is notable) rather then a bio about the person. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Although your certainty as to the notability of the case is not universally shared, that would indeed be a more useful approach. I suggest, though, that the existing article would need a considerable amount of rewriting even if the page was moved, to make the case the focus; it might be more appropriate to select different references that focus on the case and start from scratch to demonstrate the case's notability per se.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename to Kara Kopetsky disappearance. Article could be fleshed out more but has been covered by CNN, FOX, CBS, America's Most Wanted and numerous mentions in the Kansas City Star Erebus Morgaine (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." While we sympathise with the relatives, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news archive or notice-board. 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think WP:NOT doesn't apply here, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't think this falls under the category of announcements, sports or the like. I agree most sources are local but I think that in a case like this that is logical, and as I showed in my above comment the case has been covered by various national news agencies. The case had an in depth coverage on America's most wanted on the June 9 2007 and again on 13 March 2010. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I am not even from the Midwest and I know of this case, so to say it's unknown, is quite questionable, imo. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That argument, a rather subjective one, is discussed at WP:IKNOWIT.  No one is suggesting that this case is unknown; it's being suggested that it's not notable, a small but significant point. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in my opinion, not even noteworthy enough to need to consider not news. But it would certainly fall under that also.   DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and DGG, couldn't have put it better. ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (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.