Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirsa Jensen case


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that the event is notable according to our guidelines on the notability of events, but clean-up is required. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kirsa Jensen case

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While this case is undoubtedly tragic, Wikipedia is not a news service. The article appears to fail our notability tests (i.e. WP:NEWSEVENT) in terms of lasting effects, geographical scope, and duration and depth of coverage. Dominic·t 03:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - actually I have found quite alot of media attention for the case which shows continue coverage over time so there has been lasting coverage and depth.,,, .--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the same level of coverage be available for nearly anyone who goes missing? I mean, twenty years later, yes you can prove that the person went missing and that others have noticed in a few articles. But I'm not sure what makes this case particularly notable. Or do you feel every missing person case is inherently notable? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. In this day and age, it seems that every topic has some kind of coverage somewhere. Is there something that makes this particular case noteworthy? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per BabbaQ. Article can do with some clean-up in the prose though. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is even coverage from over 20 years since it happened. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A disappearance case from 20 years ago in NZ. This article is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. I don't see why this particular case deserves an article and not every single disappearance case in NZ or any other country. There is just a single reference to a small New-Zealand based crime website. The article itself reads like an investigation piece, more suited for a detective story, or a cold-case file ( A passer-by's description of "a European man, who was approximately 1.8 meters tall and 45 – 50 years in age."). Theo10011 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because not every disappearance case does have the level of notability of this one. New Zealand has 20-30 such cold cases, but this one is among the most discussed (if not the most discussed) and easily passes notability. Therefore I'm saying Keep. dramatic (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs work to bring up to standard and does not have enough in to it meet WP:Not. Nevertheless it is a Notable within New Zealand, being referred to in New Zealand newspaper and television articles at least annually. The case continues to be of media and local interest - a sort Jack-the-ripper NZ style. NealeFamily (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NEWSEVENT. Most of BabbaQ's coverage is strictly regional. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Local doesnt equal non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree The event has been covered sufficiently in depth (multiple newspaper, magazine, and television articles - including references in books), over a long period of time (20+ years), and through a diverse range of media and commentators to make it reach the standard for WP:Notability (events). The fact that it continues to be raised in the media also indicates its Notability NealeFamily (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NEWSEVENT. 2 of the sources supplied by BabbaQ are regional. the Radio NZ source merely says it could be her bones, but no subsequent story confirms it is Kirsa, so that source hardly counts as coverage. there is insufficient coverage of this and did the actual crime actually change police methods, laws, cause politicians to resign? no. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update I have updated the article and added some more references - as time permits I will expand it further, but these should go some way towards answering the WP:NEWSEVENT concerns raised. The references establish the ongoing national media attention and public interest which gives rise to my assertion that the article meets WP:Notability (events). I would respectfully ask those of you who selected Delete to review your decisions in the light of the additional information. NealeFamily (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the work you put into this, but I don't think it changes the equation. Disappearances are commonly covered in the news, and commonly revisited in the news years later if they remain unsolved. Indeed, it is the job of the family and often the law enforcement to try to keep the case in the public eye. I think what you have demonstrated is just this. The amount of coverage here seems standard, not extraordinary, and there is no reason this rises to the level of requiring inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia. As LibStar pointed out, there are other determiners of notability, like "lasting effects," and this does not seem to have had any. I don't want to sound insensitive, but it's worth considering that there are other common news events that receive coverage on about the same level as this incident which are not considered encyclopedia-worthy—like weather patterns or traffic incidents. Dominic·t 23:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for your comments Dominic. I guess what is hard to convey in the article is the profound effect, this case and a couple of others around that time had on the New Zealand psyche. The country was not without its share of murders or missing people, but in this instance at that time it was really comman for young people to go out riding, biking, and not feel particularly unsafe. The fact Jensen disappeared without trace among signs of some trauma made its impact greater than it might have had if it was in some other part of the planet. I don't know how I could demonstrate that in terms of the article or its references and I appreciate in terms of a global context it is just another missing person, but in terms of New Zealand criminal history is it significant. Also, it continues to constantly come up in the New Zealand media and not because either the family or the Police are pushing it. When I started looking at it, the number of instances in the past few months were a bit overwhelming. I can't think of many other items that had that sort of coverage. NealeFamily (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You paint a vivid picture from your personal experience, but I still have some trouble with it. This is a simplistic approach, but how is it that someone who profoundly affected the national psyche and is still a common reference to this day gets all of 3500 hits on Google, and 2500 without Wikipedia-related results? I'm fairly certain I haven't affected any national psyches, but even I get more than that (an order of magnitude more). I understand New Zealand is a smaller country and this was pre-Internet, but you're arguing for long-term historical significance here. Dominic·t 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying Dominic. The question is probably more around whether the global significance outweights the local significance. I'll rest my case and wait to see if any of New Zealand Project Wikipedian's take up the issue. It is listed as an AfD of the New Zealand project page so if they think it is of value they will no doubt comment. NealeFamily (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable as per WP:N/CA, significant long-term coverage in news media and printed books. Comparatively low number of google hits is due to the case having happened almost 30 years ago, long before the Internet was known to the public. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the big cold cases in New Zealand. Regularly revisited by the media even when no evidence pops up. A google search using (newspaper sites) "site:nzherald.co.nz" and "site:stuff.co.nz" will show a lot of stories just in last few years. See stuff.co.nz Cold cases feature for instance. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2012 (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.