Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesenia Ortiz Acosta


 * 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. the keep !vote did not adress the main concern of a lack of coverage J04n(talk page) 15:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yesenia Ortiz Acosta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete as decidedly non-notable. Amateurish vanity page. Article's creator notified on his talkpage. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, not sure how a page about a supposedly dead person can be a vanity page (or a BLP for that matter), unless one of those mediums is channeling her?. No citations at present, but it asserts notability that this is a well known incident in Puerto Rico that has had a lasting cultural impact. If that could be verified with reliable sources then I think this would be notable, but should probably be moved to Disappearance of Yesenia Ortiz Acosta along the same lines as Madeline McCann, as it is the disappearance which is notable, not the person.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no sources on this person other than news stories at the time of her disappearance. Per WP:NTEMP "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Fladrif (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the claims of TV shows doing pieces on her on an ongoing basis could be verified, that might show lasting cultural impact. Needs citations to that effect though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article's sole reflink (courierpostonline.com talk about Ortiz Acosta, in Spanish) is invalid, thus article is completely unsourced, grounds for deletion as is. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously one of the largest and most covered disappearance cases in the country. Definitly keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "[O]ne of the largest and most covered disappearance cases in the country"?? I never heard about it. Which "country" are you referring to? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's so obvious and well covered, why aren't there any citations?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is my question as well. Not to trivialize a tragedy, but wives get murdered by their husbands all the time (her ex-husband was convicted for his participation in this crime in 2006), and those crimes typically get intense, if ephemeral coverage locally. That's exactly the situation we have here. This purely local coverage doesn't make the crime, or the victim, notable. Otherwise, we would have an article for every crime and crime victim whose story got reported in any local paper. Fladrif (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (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.