Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Manon Dubé (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Manon Dubé

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:EFFECT. Previously deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I have now expanded the article with more sources that includes a news story video which may warrant a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conceding the event has garnered some sporadic coverage over the years, IMO it's not enough to ring the WP:N bell. Beyond which, long term significance appears to be more or less non-existent and almost everything about the death is highly speculative with inadequate RS coverage per WP:DUE. The bottom line is that if this meets our standards for inclusion, we are setting the bar very low indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Seems now to be enough sources to make this notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but would prefer that the information be combined with other information to create a page about the 3 missing girls who the National Post believes were linked. A page about all 3 together would, I believe have sufficient information and importance for a keep. Gusfriend (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been continuing in-depth coverage in a variety of major publications for nearly half-a-century, with brief mentions only 15 months ago - a Proquest search quickly pops up many more that could be used to WP:REFBOMB. to the already adequately-sourced page. User:Gusfriend suggestion above of having one article for all three girls is probably reasonable - but then it would be a redirect, not a delete! Nfitz (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- yeah this article has good coverage that keeps continuing so lets keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.128.6 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hint of impact on larger events that might make this notable. NOTNEWS; this is just routine crime coverage with an average level of follow-up. Star Garnet (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine 40-years of in-depth coverage for a serial killer of children - especially given how rare that child serial-killers are? WP:ROUTINE talks about "routine news coverage of such things as announcements", "Planned coverage of scheduled events,", and "events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences" - not decades of in-depth national coverage of disappearances. Also, this appears to be the very definition of WP:NCRIME! Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely routine. Run of the mill coverage of a child's disappearance, followed by continued appeals from family and friends. Newsworthy, not noteworthy. Re:serial killer, that wouldn't confer notability even if it was substantiated. Star Garnet (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine doesn't mean not notable. The World Cup is about as routine as you can get. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Star Garnet (talk). Nothing to see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwhyte (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Gusfriend that a combined article would be better, but that's a reason to move and expand this article, not delete it, in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be better if there were a page on the serial killings to which this could be merged. Is there enough coverage to justify such a page? Mlb96 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wish You Were Here (book). Per Mlb96, and all the others who seem to agree that a combination article would be in order here, the proposed merge article seems to be a good enough vehicle for this purpose, especially since it prevents the creation of an article with an unwieldy title. However, caution should be exercised with this approach, since the above seems to be self-sourced, and also because of WP:COATRACK. On its own though, I am not seeing the SIGCOV necessary to keep this content out of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ADVOCACY territory. StonyBrook (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tragedy lacks a WP:LASTING impact as a standalone event, and merging seems like a good WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.