Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)


 * 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. After the relisting that was performed to ensure fairness in the discussion process, consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America1000 02:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Torso found in 1960 in state of advanced decomposition and unable to be identified. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources beyond initial 1960 news article. Google search and Google news search return no relevant links.

Other Unidentified Persons Database reference contains no details that meet WP:GNG. Third linked ref is independent, non-law enforcement volunteer site which does not meet WP:RS.

Victim was toddler or young child when murdered and at time of murder was not notable for anything else. WP:NOTNEWS. AldezD (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - NOTNEWS does not apply here. Clearly notable. Per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Better sourcing could be an option though. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This nomination is spiteful and frivolous. This article was patrolled when it was created and found to be acceptable for Wikipedia. AldezD has done some good work on the wiki but at times he gives the impression of being on a personal crusade, imposing his views. I would hesitate to call him a troll but... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: There’s a WP:ANI thread relevant to this comment. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I recently uncovered several more resources giving information for the victim and planned to update it when I got the chance. I feel the case meets sourcing requirements as the presence of primary and secondary currently are used in the article and more will soon be added.The Doe Network does have law enforcement background and even has members that are liaisons/officers of law enforcement facilities. This AFD seems rushed, in my opinion. No need to get too carried away. -- Gourami Watcher  (?) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I was not canvassed, as I have made significant contributions to the article itself and other related topics. -- Gourami Watcher  (?) 20:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reformat to event article She wasn't even an entire corpse, just a torse. At least as far as anyone here knows. Of course, she used to be a person, but nothing she did during that time was worth a mention, let alone significant coverage. Jane Doe's body parts turn up all the time, and while I appreciate the clever nickname separating her from the rest, that nickname doesn't help her notability case a bit. See nobody for details. The hubbub got some attention, but she did essentially nothing. Not a real biography. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When her identity becomes known, we can rename it "Murder of ...", as we did with Caledonia Jane Doe, and a couple of other recently-identified UIDs. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world, we'd wait to see if she was murdered, too. We don't even know the cause of death, let alone the manner. "Little Miss Nobody case" would cover everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it could be "Death of ..." if any determination of the cause of death does not state that it's a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes LMN buried herself in that creek bed. ("...the bullet, like drove itself into my gut...") Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Burying a body isn't killing a person (unlawfully or otherwise). Maybe she ate some bad tuna, her parents freaked out because social workers warned them about that tuna, they swept her under the rug and told the state she went to live on a farm with her grandparents. Or something entirely different, but still not murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I just added more information from the resources I had saved previously (more than doubling the amount prior to the AFD), the cause of the girl's death was never determined. However, authorities expressed suspicions of foul play and some of the sources stated it was murder. Notably, Bella Bond was found in a garbage bag and remained unidentified until last week. Her death cause was never determined but officials went ahead and stated it was homicide, as well as the allegations made by Bella's mother that her boyfriend has punched the girl until she died.-- Gourami Watcher  (?) 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're going with the Bella Bond thing, but yeah, it's definitely suspicious. People suspected foul play in the Salish Sea human foot discoveries, too. It's human nature to not think of bad fish eating us. We blame our neighbours instead. But suspicion doesn't make something real enough for an article title. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Where exactly is it stated that only the torso of the victim was found? As far as I've read, it was determined that the child had teeth that were well-cared for and that she had painted her toenails. NAMUS profile states "all parts recovered." -- Gourami Watcher  (?) 00:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard it from the nominator, just sort of assumed it was true. My bad. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * His story about SIGCOV seems to check out, though. A local (partial) skeleton. Two steps below Mountain Meadow Massacre remains and four below Romanov cremains. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people today outside Philadelphia wouldn't recognise the Boy in the Box but he still gets an article. People publicised LMN throughout the freaking USA in 1960 trying to give her her name back. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying and failing, evidently. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment So not only is this AFD spiteful and frivolous, the nominator didn't even get the facts right. What a Mickey Mouse operation he is. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul, as much as I know how frustrating it is to get an article AFD'ed (Articles for deletion/Lyle Stevik (3rd nomination) is a good example) it's best to stay away from comments like this. It could only make the situation worse.-- Gourami Watcher  (?) 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm just increasingly frustrated with AldezD. Forgive me. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, any unidentified-decedent case that makes national news, whenver, is inherently notable IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it count as "making national news" if several papers in various American places run the same AP story? That's all I'm seeing (white shorts, checkered blouse, leather sandals). Could be missing something big, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your question first, the copycat/herd mentality nature of corporate media is used quite often to justify recentist piffle, even when the end result amounts to a WP:BLP1E violation. I have no real opinion on the article, but rather wanted to say something about this topic in general.  I came across Wikipedia's coverage of unidentified murder victims through work on Robert Hansen.  The tone conferred through this coverage suggests that Wikipedia is being used as a venue for advocacy on the issue.  For that reason alone, I would be suspicious of anything I see on here in this topic area. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most (if not all) articles on this topic on Wikipedia are added only when there is a reasonable amount of information available on the case and if there is some level of prominence to the public. Users that have created these pages know this. Otherwise Wikipedia would look more like The Doe Network, the Unidentified Wikia or NamUs with thousands of short, stubby articles. -- Gourami Watcher  (?) 05:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The Huffington Post still lists her in 2015 as one of "9 Murder Victims Whose Names Remain a Mystery". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The deletion proposal is based strictly on the claim of non-notability. However, the notability criteria are all satisfied: The entry's subject has been given significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources, which are independent of the subject. This Wikipedia entry easily passes the N-test. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a widely covered instance of unidentified victim/unsolved murder that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Is it still widely covered when we count all the AP articles as one?
 * Anyway, according to this other AP story, another "Little Miss Nobody" was buried right beside this one, thirty years later. We don't have Francine Meegan, but she could make for a third paragraph in the Burial section here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment spreading via the Associated Press is the pre-Internet equiv of "Baby Doe"'s case spreading like wildfire in the Internet Age. I'm old enough to remember when afternoon newspapers still had some life in them and i know it's hard for some editors to remember what things were like before they changed with the Internet Age. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The newswires are still alive and well in this modern day. Still count as one source. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just realised that the last edit to the Little Miss Nobody article or talk page before AldezD called this AFD was mine, over a month after the last edit to the article. Either it's a big coincidence or AldezD is stalking my edits, checking what contributions i am making. That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with checking someone's edit history. It's all as public as the edits are. Hounding is another story. I just creeped your contributions and notice you said the same thing at the administrator's noticeboard, except you also want this AfD thrown out for this. That gameplan is pretty much doomed; if you want the article kept, just wait. I'm only objecting to the lack of notability for the record. I don't expect it to change the outcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just increasing frustrated with his behaviour. I'm sorry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe your frustration leads to his behaviour (or alters the way you perceive his behaviour). Heather O'Rourke once said talking about things makes them happen, and she seems to be the root of this problem. Rather than apologize to me, who you haven't wronged, maybe try apologizing to and forgiving your enemy instead. Who better could use it? Might help settle the disruptions. Or maybe I'm a delusional hippie. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Nomination claims that subject fails WP:GNG. There are sufficient WP:RS to establish that the subject passes WP:GNG. This is not an example of WP:NOTNEWS - this is not a news report.--Jersey92 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Article creator WP:CANVASSED for AFD:, , , , , . AldezD (talk)
 * It was *not* WP:CANVASSing. to quote Daniel Case on my talk page "I just warned you because it could be used in the AfD to discredit a keep consensus (although in this case I genuinely think you weren't trying to do that)". Plus, all the people i notified had the following apply to them:
 * Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
 * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
 * Editors known for expertise in the field
 * Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on your note Whether someone has been canvassing in respect of this RfC or not is entirely irrelevant to the RfC, since all opinions stand on their own merit. If you believe that someone, e.g. PBA, has been canvassing, there are appropriate forums to which you should address this. The Wikipedia administrator who will eventually decide upon this RfC is not the party responsible for deciding on the charge of canvassing. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: User also undid my edits twice three times notifying closing admin of AFD that page creator had WP:CANVASSed., , . One edit summary by user is "don't irritate me" AldezD (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The third diff given in the above note was a removal of the note itself. The WP:CANVASS notification was only removed twice. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have decided to withdraw from this AfD. It is obvious that even keeping to Wikipedia policy on who to notify in WP:CANVASS is being held against me and AldezD is happy to use "exact words" of Wikipedia policies to achieve his goals. I'm burnt out. I faced this before, when WP was faced with left wing editors determined to WP:OWN Soviet-related articles. I'm just plain burnt out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (edited to add): definitely burnt out. I thought Little Miss Nobody was as notable as say Sheree Beasley and Karmein Chan are here in Australia. Maybe i was wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an impartial observation, but at this point there are no “delete” votes, and there are “keep” votes from editors who were not directly notified. Doesn’t seem on track for deletion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mine is sort of a delete vote. Burn the biography, raise an event article. Essentially would have the same content, but she's indisputably not notable for anything she did as a person. Other people's discovery of her corpse at least touches the "notable enough" line. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note I was not canvassed. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is a fairly classic example of a true crime story — unidentified remains from 50 years ago, victim's age unknown, case unsolved. Lots of media coverage at the time and another round of coverage of the fact that this is an old unsolved case. That does not an encyclopedia article make. NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and NOTPOLICEBLOTTER are the relevant guidelines. I would urge that this be held open another week to see what a truly random selection of community members feel about the notability here as this feels very much like a packed jury. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have indeed been asked by Paul Benjamin Austin to participate in the discussion and his invitation was clearly meant to have me "support" his position for the article to stay up. Having said that, let me state that there is no way on earth that I would be swayed by any such invitation, whether to support or oppose something. I make up my own mind and, in fact, it would've pleased me a great deal to go against the intentions of the editor who invited me over! But the facts, in my view, are clearly in favor of letting the article stay up. Which is what shaped my position; nothing else did. If there is a "packed jury" I am not part of it. Let me end by saying that this is the first interaction I had with  this particular editor in all my years in Wikipedia. Cheers - and, people, loosen up, will you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - THIS by is inexcusable. Don't ever pull that shit again, either the canvassing or especially the removal of a complaint against you with a snotty edit summary... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul's behavior has little relevance to whether or not the article should be kept. Using profanity and borderline incivility when responding to his comments kind of defeats the purpose of pointing out his less-than-civil edit summary.-- Gourami Watcher  (?) 00:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing particularly profane about "shit" in English anymore (we have F word or N-word, and no S words), but telling someone to never pull it again is a bit threatening. That's not that civil. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like i said, I think I'm burnt out. I'm also under heavy stress because of my mother's ill health. Under such tremendous strain, I might be letting AldezD's view of What Wikipedia should be get to me more than it should do. Again, I'm not American and if LMN (she really should have a name like Barbara or Mary, than a title) is not as notable as say, Sheree Beasley or Karmein Chan, I'm willing to say goodbye to the article. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I request this comment be moved to the AN/I thread. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of you may have noticed I moved the page to not presume murder. It's a good guess, but that's all it is. This title allows for any possible future eureka moment. Hope that's alright by you humans and doesn't screw up the way this is listed for any computers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have prefferred if it would have taken place after the AfD was over, but it's good to be bold.-- Gourami Watcher  (?) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is shaping up to be a replay of the now closed RfC about whether or not "murder" signifies "murderer". Let's please don't. Here's the consensus of the competent authorities: "Investigators at the scene...observed that the individual or individuals responsible for the burial had possibly made several attempts to dig different graves for the body, as disturbances in the sand near the body suggested. ... Her cause of death was never successfully determined by medical examiners. Police guessed she had been murdered, given the circumstances of the crime scene." I would kindly ask InedibleHulk to revert his edit. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No thanks. "Police guessed she had been murdered...". Their guess remains as good as anyone's, and a guess is a pretty flimsy thing to hang an article title on, especially when the new disambiguator is 100% true and inclusive (this whole thing's a cold case), far more concise and doesn't frame this as a biography (lacking any biographical info).
 * Not sure what that first quote was supposed to mean here. How someone died has no bearing on how many tries it takes to dig a grave. That's up to the ground quality and your tools. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the opinion of the police carries the same weight as "anyone's"? Is it perhaps in your plans to strike off the criteria for reliable sources? Are we going to have, at long last, total relativism in this world of ours? This is getting interesting, if not downright amusing. -The Gnome (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since this AfD started, you made nine (9) changes to the article, most of them in relation to the very nature of the case, which, as it happens, is directly linked to this AfD. This is not "being "being bold" but, to put it mildly, bad form. -The Gnome (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The nature of the case is it's unsolved. It's certainly not a murder case, even presuming police can guess better than anyone. And most of them were grammar and wordiness edits. The most substantial bit was attributing the vague "It is believed" to the police, instead of say, anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been gently reminded that Wikipedia does recognize that some parties' "opinions" or "guesses" carry far more weight than others'. The former are reliable sources and the latter, well, they are not. Yet, you're keen to re-write or ignore Wikipedia's rules, which is what makes you write: "...even presuming police can guess better than anyone". There is no "presuming" to be made, sir. That is utter nonsense. -The Gnome (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources say the police guessed it was murder. That's all. And the article relays that just fine. There was no murder investigation, because the coroner couldn't tell whether to check the "Homicide" box. If that proper authority had, then the police guess would start carrying weight. But as things actually turned out, that's as far as we still know, despite the best guesses of Sergeant Joe and Average Joe. It's a thrilling 0-0 tie, during which time the people who actually knew probably died mysteriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is anything but "thrilling" is this tiresomely maniacal effort to "keep Wikipedia from judging" anything. In reality, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a judge of anyone or anything; it merely reflects what's out there, in the context of third-party, reliable sources. Here's what might be confusing you: The entry's text currently reads, "The police guessed [etc]". But police departments and especially American ones have rarely if ever used the word "guess" in regards to their assessments, either as a noun or as a verb, in their official statements. Which means that the loaded term "guess", on which you are trying to anchor an argument, is either the term used by the newspaper (on an impossible to read facsimile), or more probably one chosen by a careless Wikipedia editor. To recap: Police assessments do not carry the same weight as "anyone's", at least not in the context of Wikipedia editing, despite what you might think. They carry way more weight! And what we have coming out of the competent, responsible police department is that this is a murder case whether we like that or not, and whether we agree with that or not. Please, make an effort to understand how Wikipedia works. -10:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found an online version of the news article. Turns out the headline was wrong, and the story doesn't mention guessing or murder. Just police appealing for clues. So there you go. It does call this the "Little Miss Nobody case", oddly enough. I can't find a single thing saying this ever became a murder case. Have you? The DoeNetwork lists only the medical examiner under "Investigating agencies". Why'd you quote "keeping Wikipedia from judging"? I didn't say that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Rome one doesn't mention murder, either. So I've removed the "presuming" and "guessed" bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it make more sense to refer to the article simply as Death of Little Miss Nobody? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The past is truly a different country. Riley Ann Sawyers got Baby Grace, while LMN got a Jane Withers movie title. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because of canvassing concerns.  Sandstein  17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The case is notable and was revisited as recently as August 25, 2015, by the Huffington Post. Per my reading of WP:CRIME this meets item #1. Since this is an article about a notable crime and not a biography, I find those delete arguments specious. Additionally, WP:NOTNEWS (N/A hardly breaking news and still receives coverage 55 years later), WP:NOTMEMORIAL (N/A since nobody knows who she is) and WP:NOTPOLICEBLOTTER (N/A is not a thing) are too far of a stretch to delete an article about a notable event. BTW: I was not canvassed, I stumbled on to the discussion from AfD Today-- 009o9 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage over the years, similar to other non-identified decedents. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As stated above, this is a case that didn't just 'come and go' decades ago. Further interest has remained in reliable sources, with the Huffington Post commenting on it more recently. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage at the time and later to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep due to multiple examples of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, spanning decades of time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else. Notability is consistent. Versus001 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As someone above noted Hufftington Post even touched on it in August so it's clearly notable (I try to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE-type !votes but in this case It actually is notable), Anyway notability's there – Davey 2010 Talk 00:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC). =++++
 * I'm not calling it non-notable, just keep in mind that The Huffington Post publishes about 1,900 articles per day. At that rate, they mention everything. It's not like there's a bar to clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I, too, am a bit skeptical about the weight given to The Huffington Post. The blog post is essentially the work of two people at The Lineup. Apparently you can let them know if you find something interesting and it might make its way into their project which in turn could make its way into The Huffington Post. The Wikipedia article predates their article by a couple months, so it wouldn't surprise me if they used Wikipedia as their source. It's proof of nothing, but you'll be hard pressed to find information in that article that isn't already in Wikipedia. - Location (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (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.