Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Paige Renkoski

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Paige Renkoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Another tragic but tragically common disappearance (about 2,300 Americans are reported missing each day). No evidence of any lasting outcome, such as a change in a law as a result of the case, that indicates that this is any more than just a run-of-the-mill disappearance case. References are typical news reports or routine coverage; not indicative of this case being any more notable. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable. However, when missing person cases continue to receive fairly wide coverage on their 25th anniversary (and for a few years around this date, and throughout) - which is the cases here - they generally are. [1][2] [3] [4][5][6][7] Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per continued coverageas presented above. Notable and relevant sources. BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is only nominally a "missing person" case, because the body has not been found. There's no real dispute that it's a kidnap-murder. As a crime story, it received widespread and continuing media attention. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Routine cold case. WP is not intended as a cold case database, the governing policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SIGCOV ongoing 25 years after she was reported missing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the current sourcing, this topic passes WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- There's nothing special about this case. Sure, its tragic, but nothing out of the ordinary. The media always digs up cold cases in hopes that there will be a new lead (and I think that's a good thing). However, we can't have an article on every crime or disappearance that been featured on America's Most Wanted or the Investigation Discovery channel. It easy to say that there's been recent coverage, but you have to look at the context of that coverage. It's routine, its not as if there has been new developments in the case or its considered the crime of century.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• However, the standard here is not "crime of the century" it is WP:NCRIME, which this article meets. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:BLP1E should apply too because technically we don't know for a fact that she is dead.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not applicable because all recent coverage has sentences like these from 2011: "has been missing and presumed dead for 21 years...", 2011: "used ground-penetrating sonar and cadaver dogs to search rural areas in Livingston County for a possible burial spot for Paige Renkoski", and, 2017: "Dual memorial planned for missing woman and her mother on Feb. 2".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One could still claim WP:BIO1E - however we are covering the event (Disappearance(X) of... (or some other X should it develop)) - and not the BIO itself - BLP1E/BIO1E would be a valid call for Paige Renkoski, not for Disappearance of Paige Renkoski. Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable presumed crime; nothing stands out about this one. An example of the missing white woman syndrome not suitable for the encyclopedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per K.e.coffman and DGG. This is, unfortunately, a routine case of which there are a dozen a dime. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet the question at AfD is not: Do we perceive this crime as a "routine case," the question at AfD is, do sources support notability as per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME with INDPETH coverage that has CONTINUED for many years in reliable, independent sources? E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Missing person's case of local interest covered by all too common news stories: "Still missing XX years later...", "In Memoriam...", etc. Saying this coverage is anything, but periodical and routine is ignoring how the news generally functions and the lack of any actual substance to the case. We are not a database for missing persons and should not even try to be, especially when this is the product. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that sources are not local, she is discussed in considerable detail in a book by Clifford L. Linedecker (a journalist and author of quite a few true crime books in the 1980s and 90s who can certainly support an article,) the book was published by a major New Yorrk house (Macmillan Publishers (United States)). She is also discussed in several other books on crime. It is important not just to look at the description of the crime, but to assess the sourcing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Gregory you have to know by now that I look into your statements for accuracy. The book you are trying to pass off, Death of a Model, is about an entirely different person; Paige's case is noted for some similarities. As for the "several other books", this is the only one I found in a search that mentions her at any considerable length. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do me the courtesy of not twisting my words. I wrote that the book "discusses her in some detail", which it does, it is obviously about a different young woman. Book searches return varying results even when the same search term is used, this is just the way gBooks works. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Revisit: other gBook hits appear to be trivial/routine.[ [User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At best you can describe it as a footnote. Five mentions of her name in a 277-page book? Please. And present these other book results so we can determine how much discussion there actually is on her. Should be simple if you are receiving different results. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact check Your assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, Clifford L. Linedecker's description and discussion of Renkowski's is extensive and fills a 4-5 page section of the book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• SIGCOV ongoing 25 years after she was reported missing. Is there really a question here. BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD has been relisted twice. Considering that, and the fact this discussion is more than lazily saying "per GNG/SIGCOV", I think your question is answered.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Take your battleground attitude somewhere else. thanks. BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Targeting the editor, not the argument. That is actual battleground behavior BabbaQ. Do not ask a question and get upset when the answer is not to your liking. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a repository of missing white woman syndrome cases. No sign of any WP:LASTING significance, as the nom has pointed out. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a police blotter or accumulation of "True Crime" stories. NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as one of Michigan's longest running cold cases. Info added to lede. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 16 March 2018 (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.