Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kidnapping of Michaela Garecht


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Kidnapping of Michaela Garecht

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Despite the media coverage this is basically a WP:BLP1E issue. There is also a WP:NOT issue, Wikipedia is not a venue for "please help find" or "please come home" activities. ukexpat (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be for a move to Michaela Garecht if she's notable, but failing that, delete per the above arguments . -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 01:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC), struck the delete 07:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event if only because of the very considerable media coverage at the time (justified or not). Needs extensive rewording to move it away from current 'Reward Offered' flyer appearance, and speculative statements need trimming, but should make a decent pre-internet news media event article. Centrepull (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. How heartwrenching! I know that's not a reason to keep an article, but I do agree with Centrepull that notability is established in the coverage and the number of leads. I think it needs a major rewrite by someone who's not so close to the event. Quote the family from a press clipping or from AMW, but the article looks like a loving letter to a missing child, not an encyclopedia article. I'm so sorry to the family! Dcs002 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Irrespective of the coverage is it still not a notable for one event issue, heartbreaking though it is for the family? Kidnappings always receive a lot of coverage so are we saying they are all de facto notable? – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not all kidnappings, but perhaps all that rise to this level of public interest. JonBenét Ramsey was also notable for one event. The only difference I see is the amount of coverage. Where should WP draw the line? For other individuals, notability is far easier than this to establish.


 * Sure, I never heard of her until I read this article, but I never watch any of the TV shows that featured her story. But they are immensely popular shows. There are an awful lot of WP articles on people who haven't had one tenth the national media coverage Michaela has had. On that basis, she certainly seems very notable to me. And why do we know about her? Is that really an important question? I think cases like this become iconic in people's minds and therefore become part of our culture. Dcs002 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not an argument against deletion, we are talking about this article. We draw the line at significant coverage as per policy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I'm trying to edit the article to make it more subjective and more appropriate as an encyclopedic article. BUT I do not believe it should be deleted. It is certainly be eligible for the category of kidnapped american children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kidnapped_American_children. Similarly it is a story which has stayed in the national media for the past 21 years on many high profile shows. Most recently it has been due to its connetions to the high profile Jaycee Lee Dugard case. Similarly the suspect Phillip Garrido is being investigated as a possible suspect in this case.

There are MANY webpages dedicated to Michaela Garecht and therefore I think it is only appropriate that an offical wikipedia page is made and I believe it will be of interest to many people. People are fascinated by the fact that it has still not been solved YET it is not a cold case. It is still being investigated by police 21 years later. I am editing according to the above suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zara565 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep: This article does meet the criteria for WP:N/CA, but it needs to be almost completely rewritten.Cathardic (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: But also see WP:VICTIM... – ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But this article isn't about the victim, it's about the crime, though there's probably only going to be enough decent content for a stub. While I hate cluttering wikipedia with the news cycle and pet projects, this abduction, by virtue of being on abunch of "media sources" (read: sensationalist tv) does belong.Cathardic (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sorry that's just semantics, the crime and the victim are inextricably linked, so WP:VICTIM is relevant. This may rise to a Matthew Shephard or Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard level of notability, but I don't think it's there yet. – ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article has now been edited to make it more appropriate and I believe it is now totally eligible for wikipedia. If nothing it certainly comes under a 'unsolved mystery' catergory. The crime was a notable event and many people remember it at the time it happened. Many people search the net to find out 'what happened?'- this justifies a wikipedia entry in itself. Additionally this case is still being investigated therefore it will most definately be of encyclopedic status when the case is finally resolved- '21 year mystery solved'. The point of an encyclopedia is to look up facts about anything including high-profile crimes.
 * Keep i remember this getting intensive news coverage, which may show media bias, but still establishes notability. i think that a little effort could clean up article and find good support for notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It could possibly be re-written from the angle of a kidnapping which happened before 'Amber Alert's' and the internet, etc? Zara565 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I changed my !vote essentially.  It's been modified as to more of a proper page.  However, I think that moving it to just the proper name of the kidnapped person would be more suited to the article.  It's granted that it's about her, and this is exactly why I'd suggest this route. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (and I hate it when I forget the tildes!)


 * Comment: I agree with  Dennis The Tiger . Other notable child crime victims (Steven Stayner, JonBenét Ramsey, and Adam Walsh) have their articles titled by name only. Dcs002 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 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.