Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hailey Dunn

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. Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Dunn

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

(Same as Haleigh Cummings‎ article listed below) Standard missing person case, one of tens of thousands worldwide. No individual notability about this case. Article added by the same single purpose user. Some potentially libelous statements. NPOV. Dmol (talk)

- Question Why would anything claimed in this article be considered potentially libelous if what is written is just paraphrased from what one read in news articles? I thought the whole idea of citing references protects such statements that may appear libelous? Am I wrong? Allycat1208 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This case is a Texas case, not Florida. The Hailegh Cummings case is a Florida case. Allycat1208 (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't think an account should be labelled as a Single Purpose Account when they edit many different missing persons articles. Some seem enthralled with Missing white woman syndrome, so much that they've absorbed a ton of information from other news sources not found on Wikipedia. It' like saying if I did nothing but edit baseball articles, I'd be a single purpose account as well. I have no vote since I don't know the guidelines that decides what makes a missing girl notable, but here's the Google News results Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 11:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the reason events of an arrest and developments overall. Hailey Dunn gets 3 830 000 hits on google too.. so coverage has been made to a good extent.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News Archive brings up 54 articles, a very low amount. Laladoodle92 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How many hits for a topic from google news archive is enough to be deemed important? Allycat1208 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were up to me, I would say 1000+ articles. However, I have seen cases pass their aFD with less than 1000 articles, but much more than 54. This case has not received massive media coverage, it did not inspire any new laws, there have been no TV specials/documentaries or movies made it, no books written, etc. Laladoodle92 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of Google hits, this is notable. The other problems with the article may be solved by being bold and editing it, but they are not valid criteria for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That 'single-purpose' editor, Allycat1208, referenced by nom above, creates and edits articles on murdered and missing children. I'll take that bit of argument for deletion by assuming good faith and say that I don't think there is anything wrong with being a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia.Roodog2k (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've put a notice about this article on the BLP noticeboard, suggesting that the entire "Investigation" section is tainted with unproven accusations against various people suspected of having a role in Hailey Dunn's disappearance and presumed murder, and proposing that this entire section should be thoroughly removed. The fact that these claims may have been made in newspapers does not (per my understanding of WP:BLP) make it OK to repeat the allegations. Note that even though Hailey Dunn may be dead (and thus the article itself is not a BLP), the BLP policy still applies to statements made in the article regarding living people. As for whether the article itself belongs, I am inclined to !vote to delete per WP:VICTIM — and if the article is deleted, it should be revdel'ed or oversighted out of concern for the material in the "Investigation" section. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM and per nom. Google News has very few hits - I count 13, though YMMV. I see no points of notability and very great WP:BLP risk for others named in the article.
Delete. Per editor just above me. This kind of event is always going to receive significant coverage for a time. We can't have articles about all of them. See WP:NOTNEWS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom etc. Sadly, cases like this are rarely of great long-term significance, except to those involved. And yes, there were serious issues with the 'investigation' section too. I think the article creator should familiarise him/herself with core WP:BLP policy before writing any more articles on similar topics - this type of article (even if meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines) needs a great deal of care to avoid implications that are unjustified, and negative portrayal of individuals that have had no part in the case itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTNEWS. These are tragic events, but such tragic events happen every day and are reported every day in reliable news sources. This does not usually render the victims notable. In the case of WP:EVENTS, I think persistence in sources is key. For the sake of the subject, let's hope we're dealing with BLP here. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (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.