Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Melanson


 * 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.

Melanie Melanson
The result was keep. I'll revisit this is six months, hopefully with good-faith editors who read the full rationale. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Chalk this one up to "missing white girl syndrome". The majority of sources are databases for missing persons (and YouTube videos), but Wikipedia is not a database for missing persons. We also have the routine "X years later..." stories with no actual in-depth analysis or impact. I feel for the family, but tragedy does not equate to instant notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't so much "missing white girl syndrome" as the fact that the editor who created this is known for making these types of articles all the time.★Trekker (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom might want to strike her race-based assertion on the grounds that this editor appears to create articles on a race-neutral basis (Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall). E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't recall attributing "missing white girl syndrome" to the article's creator, so no. Rather, I do recall attributing it to the "X years later..." coverage that is actually described in my rationale. Perhaps you want to re-read it  and tell me where the article's creator is mentioned so I may strike it? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And given that we try to keep our AfD discussions race-neutral (Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall). E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "missing white girl syndrome" is an observed social phenomenon. I cannot "unobserve" it unfortunately. I don't complain when you call suspects in criminal cases jihadists or terrorists "race-neutral" AFDs before an official investigation does. Why is observing a social phenomenon on disproportionate (but routine) news coverage somehow different? And can you elaborate as to why you are linking to an AFD I never participated in? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Although sourcing in article is poor, there has in fact been INDEPTH, ONGOING coverage of the search for for the body and for clues about the perp in major regional dailies (I have excluded duplicate/echoed stories). Menlanson went missing in 1974. Boston Herald: Divers search pond for body of missing Woburn teen-ager, (7 Aug. 1992;) Decades-long search rekindled with $5G (7 May 2009); DA mum on search for girl (25 Sept. 2009); Lowell Sun, Private search resumes for Melanie Melanson (18 Aug. 2012). Boston Globe, 20 years later, search for girl continues: Police reportedly scour Woburn site, (25 Sept.2009,) Search resumes in 1989 case of missing teen: Woburn student was last seen at party in woods (29 July 2012); She deserves proper burial, (6 May 2009). And more similar. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, as E.M.Gregory pointed out that this article contains ongoing coverage. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - lack of valid deletion rationale. "missing white girl syndrome" is not a valid deletion rationale (nor is NOTNEWS for a clear non-news issue). What is relevant for assessing notability of the event is coverage. In this case it is easy to see we have continuing in-depth coverage of this possible murder - e.g. in 2015, 2013, 2012, [2014, 2011, 2009. Coverage is INDEPTH and CONTINUING. As for the editorial considerations of NEWSORGS - take it up with the editors there - not with Wikipedia's editors. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep indeed. I'll gladly revisit this issue with editors who read the full rationale. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2018 (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.