Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dunahee


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dunahee
This article looks more like a missing person ad than a true Wikipedia bio, and aside from him being missing, I don't get how notable he is. Editor88 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. This is a hard one, until you look at the inclusion critera. This case has been in in the media BC and Canada over the years, but I wonder if that is more through the tenacity of the family keeping it in the news. This missing child, as sad as it is, is no more or less notable than any other missing child. Could treat this one under WP is not a memorial page. Agent 86 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep after seeing improvements by Resolute. The article still needs lots of help, but in its current form may be more appropriate to label with cleanup or expand than to delete. Agent 86 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This case has been in the media over the years and this makes the subject in question notable. Moreover, children going missing in the world today are relatively rare. These kinds of rare events makes the topic notable in itself. Thus, we should keep this article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete tragic, yes. But WP is not a forum for finding missing  here.  Sorry -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. Sad to say, children going missing are not that rare, and this one happened fifteen years ago. Fan-1967 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after rewrite to show the significance of this specific case. Fan-1967 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Antares33712 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Several mentions in the Toronto Star as recently as 2004. Rjm656s 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Keep -- if this case really has remained consistently in the news regardless of whether it is the persistence of the parents, then it should be kept but with some documentation on the notability, and the article itself needs a serious cleanup since it currently is a missing persons notice and not an entry in an encylopedia. -- Whpq 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing special about the case (unfortunately).   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Not likely to become more notable in future. Sad, but not encyclopdic. Arevich 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Simply going missing does not make one notable, however this case spawned one of the largest police investigations in Canadian history (Article from March 2006), was cited as a reason to introduce the Amber Alert system in BC  and has spawned the "Michael Dunahee 'Keep the Hope Alive' 5k family run/walk", an event now in its 15th year to raise money for ChildFind.   There is enough to make the article notable, however it does require a complete rewrite so it reads as something more than an ad. Resolute 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I might be inclined to change my vote to keep an article like that. The one that exists now is a Milk Carton. -- Fan-1967 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have rewritten the article. I hope this suffices.  I will also post it to the Canadian wikipedians' notice board to see if others can further expand on it. Resolute 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ardenn  03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten version. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dancing on the edge of the notability line, but I'll go with the keep given Resolute's improvements. Bearcat 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - for reasons above, plus others, the case has had an impact not just on the family but on BC society in general. The rewrite helps, and if Resolute posts it to the Cdn noticeboard, there undoubtably will be more improvements in short order. --Ckatz 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I support keeping this article although my comments may be discounted for the fact that I began it even though I have nothing to do with the participants or any previous involvement in the story. I agree that it was a skimpy start. The improvements that have followed have helped.   The noteriety of this disappearance are unique in an area that goes beyond the City where he lived.  This case struck a chord across BC and Canada that has sustained its recollection as an event familiar to many even those born after or too young at the time of the disappearance to remember the event.  kgw 05:42, 23 July 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.