Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have disappeared


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of people who have disappeared

 * Delete as listcruft. The topic is so broad that the list can be endlessly long if we found enough people who have disappeared. Furthermore, we already have "Category:Disappeared people" which fits the purpose of this page. Lastly it does not meet WP:V Jersey Devil 16:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete though I admit that I like the phrase "if we found enough people who have disappeared". Now if we found them all, then this list would be getting shorter instead of longer, wouldn't it? ;-) Maelwys 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good effort, but I must agree with the nomination. -- P199 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful because of chronological reference. If the category "disappeared people" can be listed chronologically, then this page can be deleted or merged. Docether 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and notable. Also, the category for disappeared people is not complete as this one is. This one has mysterious shipwrecks and the like, which the category does not. --Pal5017 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be people that have disappeared not Desaparecidos, is there a better name for this list/cat Category:Missing people?. A list is not the same as a cat though and I'm quite sure you can find sources that say Natalie Halloway is missing.  So I ask, what exactly is this being deleted for? kotepho 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't quite understand all the reasons given by the original poster -- particularly "does not meet WP:V". If a particular item in this article appears to be unverifiable, then that item should be investigated. I don't see the purpose of saying that the entire article is unverifiable. In most cases, the items have links to the page about the person who has disappeared. Those pages, one assumes, contain verifiable information. Docether 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Make it disapper...Delete. Redundant with the existing category.--Isotope23 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful to have a chronological list, as categories are alphabetical. Piccadilly 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful. For great justice. 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Helpful list but should format the page differently so that it's simpler with dates of dissapearance after name, not as new header.
 * Keep. The chronology helps. Thanos6 05:09, 7 April 2006 (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.