Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Anne Barber Dunlap


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Anne Barber Dunlap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't see anything significant about this event, references heavily rely on 2 or 3 newspapers mostly.  Jay Jay What did I do? 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Appears to have only local significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete fails WP:VICTIM and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. I've relisted this AFD as the primary author claims he was away for the New Year's holiday and that seems like a fair reason to give him a chance to say his peace. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)




 * keep The federal.court ruling may make this local case a nationally relevant case because of the reasoning used. Is the Pillsbury ad policy really true? Bamler2 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please see here: http://adage.com/article/news/pillsbury-evaluates-ads-viloent-shows-executive-s-murder-trigger-marketer-reaction/80561/ Bundlesofsticks (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That link appears to indicate that they were considering it but doesn't confirm that policy was changed in any lasting way. In fact, it even says, "A company spokesman denied formal policy changes are underway". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to the family and friends of the victim. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The case has national significance as it led Pillsbury Co. to stop advertising on violent TV programs; it was the first case in which the relatives of a missing person used the Internet to ferret out leads. A decision in this case by the US District Court led police departments to revise how they share case files with outside investigators (in this case those of an insurance company.)  The case involved a world landmark, Mall of America.  Other voters' reference of WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant since this murder is 17 years old.  I will remove some of the bits in the article that make it seem like a memorial page.  Bundlesofsticks (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite....William 12:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--Staberinde (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. While very sad, it doesn't appear this case had much lasting impact aside from arguably influencing Pillsbury TV ad policies. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This case always attracts attention when it is mentioned on the news.  It is a good thing that there is a WP article to consolidate the events and things that happened later.  I have no doubt this case would be national news if charges are ever filed. Bellczar (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 7 February 2013 (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.