Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Stebic

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. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Stebic

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

Standard missing person case with no claim of notability. News coverage does not imply notability, as almost all missing person cases end up in the news. No changes to laws or procedures as a result of this case, another criteria that is used to determine notability. Over 2000 people are reported missing every day in the United States alone, can anyone prove why this case is an exception with encyclopedic notability. Dmol (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No idea what the nominator means by "standard missing person case." This 2007 disapearance satisfies WP:N via significant coverage in numerous reliable and independent sources, The coverage was over an extended period, with a feature on the CNN Nancy Grace show in 2012 [1], with a long article in the Chicago Sun times in 2012 [2] and 2013 [3] as well as renewed focus by prosecutors in 2013 [4] so it satisfies WP:NOTNEWS as being more than a sad case which got a big splash of coverage in one news cycle. See the numerous references included with the article, and then click on the Google book link above to see several books with some coverage stating it was a major case in Chicago, and at least one with a paragraph on the case:[5], . A major case in Chicago, with lots of newsworthy developments beyond the initial disappearance, such as what happened to reporter Amy Jacobson. Edison (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:N. Subject has recieved coverage with independent and reliable sources. And over an extended period of time.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is at best notability for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 04:57, 24 February 2014 (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.