Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have disappeared (2nd nomination)


 * 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. per WP:SNOW - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of people who have disappeared

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an incredibly vague criteria to list people under, and pathetically referenced. In a 43 KB article, we have a grand total of 8 references. The list contains large amounts of speculation as to the means, reasons, or causes for the disappearances of these various people, and all but a handful are completely unreferenced. This list can never be complete and is highly prone to the addition of large numbers of trivial entries. This would be better served by ensuring that all biographies contained in this list are in the already existing Category:Disappeared people (or Category:Date of death missing for the older cases), which is better organized and provides a more specific rationale for inclusion. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would at this point withdraw the nomination, but I don't believe that can technically be done with someone else !voting to delete the article. I do still maintain that this needs severe work in adding more references (8 is a very poor number for a list of that length); references need to be provided in-list, relying on other articles to do so isn't the best idea. However, consensus is clearly to keep, so if someone wouldn't mind WP:SNOWing this... Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The criteria for inclusion are clear. Other problems, such as sourcing and OR, are surmountable. szyslak  03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an organized list this provides more information than a category. Missing references will often easily be found in the linked articles. It does not seem overly burdened with redlinks or unlinked entries (2008 being an exception; it should probably be empty). --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Supporting references are in the linked articles. A category would not be as accessible. --Michael C. Price talk 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles themselves have the references. Clearly defined list. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article looks good and 8 references is a good tally not a bad one. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. My first instinct was delete and replace with a category - but having the years is useful factual information.Annamonckton (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a worthwhile subject, it's better than a category, it's not indiscriminate, and it can be referenced, but the nominator Hersfold does have a good point.  She's right, it is poorly sourced.  For an article that's been up for more than four years, eight (8) references is not a good tally.  I'm surprised at how many people are making the argument of "Well, you can click on the articles and read the references there".  "My source is Wikipedia itself" generally is not accepted as an excuse for a lack of references, and as additions are made, it's not likely that anyone will add a reference.  However, unexplained disappearances are are a popular subject, and it is a well-written narrative, even if the referencing is substandard.  Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not cruft or unencyclopedic, problems with OR and POV need to be fixed though. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - I noticed that Shannon Matthews was removed from the list because she has now been found. There for, a better name for the article would be List of currently missing people. TheProf | Talk 17:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but remove all red links. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to part company with the others. I agree this is an incredibly vague list, combining individuals from ancient history who have disappeared with people currently missing. Perhaps this is viable if it were split between "historical disappearances" and "current disappearances". Also, there are a few examples of individuals who have simply disappeared from the historical record, who shouldn't be listed alongside individuals who are currently missing for other reasons. 23skidoo (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the list is a mish-mash, but I don't think that's an AfD issue, that's a talk page/content issue. The content is notable and can be reorganized, splitting some items into different lists. Noroton (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: I like the idea of historical vs current disappearances in two separate lists -- but again that isn't a reason for deletion, rather improvement. --Michael C. Price talk 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That raises a good point. I think the suggestion that the entire list should be renamed "List of currently missing people" is definitely wrong, since most of these people went missing long ago.  On the other hand, that label would definitely describe persons for whom there is still an ongoing search.  Folks like Jimmy Hoffa and Judge Crater, who were declared legally dead, truly did "disappear", never to be heard from again.  Mandsford (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the distinction should be that current disappearees could still turn up alive, whereas historical disappearees must be dead, simply through the passage of time (even though their fate is otherwise unknown).--Michael C. Price talk 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - can a clear definition of what "disappeared" in this context means be provided? It's a bit ambiguous. Guest9999 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and warn editors to more extensively cite reliable sources; every time I have added an entry, I have cited a reliable source. I was also the first editor to add missing/abducted persons webpages to the External links section at the end of the article (so editors could engage in further study).  I generally agree with the idea to split the article up into an historical vs currently disappeared persons--but, as stated, that is a subject for the talk page and would require consensus.  Take care.  ProfessorPaul 01:05, 16 March 2008 (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.