Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search for Alan Goulden


 * 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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Search for Alan Goulden

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

Delete. The main concerns here are that the article is trivial and that Wikipedia is not a memorial. The person/case only seems notable for the fact that it took so long to find somebody who's body was so close to their place of residence and this does not pass WP:BIO/WP:N (whichever you chose to apply). Yes, there is coverage by reliable sources, but trivial news pieces attract this sort of attention all of the time (see here) and we need to use common sense. [WP:N/CA]] says: "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope". An amusing read, but now worth a Wikipedia article - possible merge with Lothian and Borders Police if the closing nominator feels necessary. DJ 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; I think the nominator's arguments are wrong:
 * WP:TRIVIA does in no way apply to this article, trivia applies to article which basically have a list of facts, without any other content. Compare this article to TRIVIA and hopefully you will understand why this is not trivia. Besides which, even if it was trivia, that would not be a reason to delete, rather, a reason to expand.
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply either. The web defines "memorialize" as "commemoration: a ceremony to honor the memory of someone or something" (define:memorialize) which this page is clearly not, it is a page with details of their death rather than to honor it.
 * Regardless of what your dictionary says, the policy decrees that Wikipedia doesn't create articles for every Tom, Dick and Harry who dies. DJ 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the policy doesn't say that, it say's that Wikipedia does not include articles which are to honor people who have died. I fail to see how this article is "honoring" Alan. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO, since this page is not a bio (it is about an event), we should the general notability guidelines (although I believe the person also passes WP:BIO, this is just more appropriate). So: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", I believe the subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for example: BBC, TimesOnline & stv (see References for more). Each one of these sources (a) addresses the subject directly, and in detail (each has a whole article about it), (b) are reliable, can't get much better than BBC, and each one is a trusted news reporting site, and (c) are independent of the subject, obviously.
 * The mentions in the WP:RS are trivial mentions. Doesn't count. DJ 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how 5 articles of which the main subject are this event is trivial coverage. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I think each of the arguments by the nominator are incorrectly applied, and therefore (as the article is notable, not trivial, and not a memorial) I believe the article should be kept - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously not TRIVIA. Obviously not a MEMORIAL. The article is titled Search for Alan Goulden, so it does not need to establish that Alan Goulden is a notable person, so BIO is irrelevant. The only argument I can see that Search for Alan Goulden should be deleted is good old general notability. Given that the failure of the search resulted in an investigation by another force, and this has been the subject of third party interest both on its announcement and conclusion, and has resulted in long term consequences for the force invovled, then it is imo a notable event beyond NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And after his late and un-noted addition to his nomination reason, no, this is not a criminal act either, so WP:N/CA is also irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree with Kingpins summary I do not agree with his verdict. Someone entirely unnotable dies. A group of equally unnotable people search for him and don't find him. They get disciplined. So what? The entire event is still totally unremarkable, such things happen all the time. And our reliable sources report on the weather, traffic jams, fire, the Armani Spring Collection and dam water levels on a daily basis without making any of these worthy of inclusion in WP. --Pgallert (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain which part of WP:NN this page doesn't pass? Please note it's about the event, not the person, so it doesn't matter if the person is non notable. Also, please explain how this is routine news coverage, (e.g. a weather report, or sports report). I will explain why I think to opposite: event is clearly notable per WP:NN (see my keep !vote for a more detailed reason). And this is not a routine news report (e.g. it's not an announcement, or sport/weather report, or tabloid journalism). Under that logic you could delete every single page about a murder, death, or anything else which happens more than twice a day (e.g. you could say, yes, the Death of Michael Jackson is notable, but it's just a routine news report as there's a news report about someone dying everyday), so I think it's important to use common sense here, and not say we should delete this page just because someone dies every minute. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really are suggesting that Michael Jackson is equally as notable as Alan Goulden, then you need a reality check. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: User:Kingpin13 recently nominated this article for WP:DYK, meaning that WP:ILIKEIT may be in force. DJ 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I nominated it for DYK before this AfD. ILIKEIT is about users not providing logical arguments (e.g. "Keep - I like it"), not about whether or not the user actually likes the page (please make sure you read the pages you are linking to, rather than treating them as if the page title is policy). It would be similar to me saying "DJ recently nominated this page for AfD, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be in force", which is of course, incorrect. As to my Michael Jackson example, I'm not saying they are of equal notability, but they are both notable per WP:NN. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [squeezed in] I'm not saying it doesn't pass WP:N. I'm saying that many things technically pass the notability criteria that have no place in an encyclopaedia. So my conclusion is reached by applying the very common sense you feel I do not have. If you want me to point to a rule that suggests deletion of this article I'm afraid IAR is all I can come up with.--Pgallert (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a weather report. If this happens in police forces all the time where you live, I'd be really worried personally. MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [squeezed in] It does happen where I live. Maybe not every day, but blunders are really order of the day.--Pgallert (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that this is notable due to the unusual case of the police spending weeks looking for someone and them then being found so close. I don't think that this is trivial either. Smartse (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unusual" isn't "encyclopedic". DJ 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is notable then it is "encyclopedic". Smartse (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not notable, therefore it is not "encyclopedic". DJ 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey DJ. Please explain why it's non notable, using parts of text from WP:NN, and references to the sources, or the article (as I have done). Rather than "just not notable". It's very difficult and frustrating trying to argue against someone who just keeps stating what they, personally think, without providing any backup from policies. Please explain, specifically, which part of WP:NN this event fails Also, is your issue with the article that it is non notable, or that it is "unencyclopedic"? Best - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:1EVENT. WP:N/CA. DJ 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by linking to two policies which don't apply to this.... The page is about an event, so WP:1EVENT does not apply. And the page is not about a criminal act, so WP:N/CA does not apply. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems to pass the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but that's only because it's a news event, and all news events have significant coverage due to the number of news websites. Wikipedia articles should not be news reports. I agree with Pgallert. Perhaps move it to Wikinews, though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what that policy is about. It's not "if an event has been in the news, it's not appropriate for an article", it's "if an article is actually a news report itself (e.g. weather, sports), then it's not appropriate for an article". I fail to see how this article is about a common news report (e.g. weather, sports). - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not a news report and therefore citing WP:NOTNEWS is not appropriate in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Reading this article (and lacking independent awareness of the incident -- I didn't see it reported here in the states), I see no indication of anything that makes this particular missing person case sufficiently different from the commonplace to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mr. Goulden was not a notable person in his lifetime, and there's no indication that this incident has significance beyond the event itself and special discipline for 7 policemen. This incident is not identified as a symbol or symptom of some broad societal trend, there's no indication of a conspiracy or other criminal activity that makes this bigger than one man's disappearance, and nothing important is likely to happen as a result of this incident. This is interesting, but it is all too commonplace. Unfortunately, human disappearances are not uncommon, and all too often the remains of someone who disappeared are found belatedly, but astonishingly close to the site of the disappearance. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again as I said to our Namibian user, I find it highly unconvincing that this sort of failure is commonplace in any police department, it is certainly not common in the UK. If it happens all the time, then please, give me an example in the UK in the last year or so which led to third party notice, outside investigation and long term changes to search procedures. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with MickMacNee's point. Orlady's amounts to "I've never heard of it and therefore it should be deleted" - hardly a sound argument. I've certainly never heard of this happening before and I would request that if Orlady's judgement that this is "commonplace" to please back it up with a link - I'll be more generous than MickMacNee and allow it to be anywhere in the world, not just the UK. Smartse (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If someone other than a Wikipedia contributor (i.e., a reliable source) has commented on the unusual nature of this case (what it is that makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia), that should be added to the article. With the non-relevant parenthetical removed, my comment said "Reading this article, I see no indication of anything that makes this particular missing person case sufficiently different from the commonplace to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." That is still the case. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Newsworthy, but not notable. Apply the "10 year test" and see. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the 10 year test"? This does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources to remain notable. And this is not a news report, it is an article about an event which has happened to have been in the news. If this event had been reported in a book for example, WP:NOTNEWS would not be an issue, which shows how misunderstood it is, IMO. This event is notable per WP:Notability because it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please exaplain how that is not true. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is the event about a non-notable individual who doesn't warrant a page of their own. Sorry, but I feel this article fails BLP requirements for inclusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (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.