Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Modafferi


 * 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   Rework and move to National Center for Missing Adults.. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kristen Modafferi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While this case is undoubtedly tragic, Wikipedia is not a news agency. This is a pseudo-biography of a person who is only noteworthy for being the victim of a crime which was not a "well-documented historic event", and so the article fails our notability tests. Dominic·t 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an article on the law? If the law is notable for inclusion, I could see a reasonable case for a redirect at this title to the law's article. If there's no law, this article can safely be deleted, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Kristen's Law" does not currently have an article, and is only mentioned in one other article on Wikipedia (Chandra Levy). The National Center for Missing Adults, which was set up by the law, also has no article, and is apparently now defunct. It lasted less than 5 years before Congress failed to reauthorize funding. This AfD would not stand in the way of any redirect to that article in the future, of course. Dominic·t 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to National Center for Missing Adults Apparently, the crux of the matter (ref) is when people called the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, they couldn't get help there.  President Clinton signed Kristen's Act into law in 2000, although there are several recent "Kristen's Law"s, it seems.  Even though the org lost federal funding in 2005, it is still a proper encyclopedic topic.  And I agree that we don't need or want a standalone article for the missing person.  To rewrite the article, it is sufficient to swap the two paragraphs.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that the National Center for Missing Adults is not an encyclopedic article. In fact, there's nothing stopping you from writing the article right now if you think it is, which is what your point seems to be. It's a bit much to expect a closing admin to do so, though, and I'm not sure a "move" vote makes much sense otherwise. Dominic·t 02:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing admins can rewrite articles, and I've described a specific option in how to do it. Would it help if I find an example?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You agree that the article actually under discussion does not belong on Wikipedia, but you want someone to create a different article incorporating some of its text. My point is that you are free to do that now; you don't need to ask for it to be done in an AfD vote. Dominic·t 06:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't work, at least not as easily, because if someone writes a new article, then the material in the current article must be merged. In !voting for a move, what I said was that (1) we should keep the topic as a redirect, (2) keep all the edit history, and (3) keep all of the material that is in the current article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Points 1–3 are covered by you moving the article right now to a different title, right? You create a redirect, preserve the edit history, and preserve the content. I'm not sure why you feel there's some barrier to action.
 * Personally, having very briefly investigated this situation, I'm not sure there's enough coverage to create an acceptable article at your proposed title. Does the (now defunct?) National Center for Missing Adults have a Web site or significant coverage? I found this and a few other sites/cites, but nothing great. I'll stand by my view that if there can be an article about the law (it's a federal law, right? it should meet general notability if so), this title should be a redirect to the law's article. Perhaps National Center for Missing Adults can also be a redirect? Otherwise, if the law isn't notable enough for its own article (for whatever reason), I think this title "Kristen Modafferi" and its content can safely be deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To your first point, yes, I could do so right now, and I think it should be done. But since no one has actually agreed with my doing so, it can wait.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To your second point, I considered the redirect to the law, and I'm not opposed to it. However, the organization has more history.  To cover the organization within the law article may not make sense because the relationship of the law to the organization ended in 2005.  The law fits perfectly in the article about the organization however.  There is also a clear choice in names for the organization article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep well documented by media as her a new law was established after her disappearance. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news agency? Wikipedia is based on news.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. WP:NOTNEWS. We incorporate news to form our articles, but we do not report it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a bit more than that. For example, we have WP:ITN, which is prominently featured on the Main Page, which often confuses users. Wikipedia strives to be accurate, and a good portion of striving for accuracy comes from being up-to-date with current events. There's such a heavy focus on news articles/stories/current events in places such as the main page in order to encourage the growth of articles while the subject is "hot." That is, we try to get people to improve Wikipedia's coverage of certain subjects while there's active interest in and coverage of a subject. Speaking generally, news sources often work well as reliable sources for citing information in articles.
 * My point being that, yes, of course, WP:NOTNEWS is an important part of Wikipedia in terms of defining its project scope. However, we should be aware of how the news impacts our work here (and be mindful of what can be safely passed along to sister sites such as Wikinews). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean I totally agree with you. I just don't want anyone to be left with the impression that it is our job to chronicle every event as it happens up to the minute.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTNEWS is a deprecated redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks, I hadn't noticed that. Doesn't really change any of the points above, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Move Reorganise and move to Let's Bring Them Home, with Kristen's Law and National Center for Missing Adults as redirects. Interesting to see that the later article was deleted in 2006. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahah. I looked up "A8", it was a copyright infringement, so that deletion shouldn't be a problem here.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: Clearly the article was never really intended to be about Kristen the person, but what resulted due to her tragedy..  When this article was created in 2007, we did not fret over such niceties. Based on some searching, I think the article should move to National Center for Missing Adults, as there is more than one "Kristen's Law" out there.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move It's not a typical Biography; not notable or encyclopedic enough, if not for her disappearance and the political ramifications. I'd vote delete or move to an existing article, maybe someone here can start a Kristen's law article, and move the content to an appropriate section. Theo10011 (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 9 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.