Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempe Girl (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Sad case. She is someone's daughter. But the consensus here, going by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is to delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempe Girl

AfDs for this article:

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

Tempe Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:No original research, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:ROUTINE portion of WP:NEVENT. The first AFD erroneously cited WP:VICTIM/WP:CRIME; neither of which applies here as the death is not connected to a crime. A cocaine overdose is a tragic death, but there is nothing in the sources to suggest this was anything more than an accidental death. While there is some secondary coverage like CNN, the article is largely sourced to primary sources like National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NAMUS, and DNA Doe Project or to unreliable sources such as Facebook. The sources are slapped together into an original synthesis of the material. Ultimately the news coverage here is thin as well; with the primary goal to appeal to the public to assist in identification of the body. The US has over 100,000 deaths from drug overdoses per year. Cold cases of unidentified bodies are sadly not uncommon with NAMUS recording an average of 4400 unidentified bodies annually in the United States alone, with over a thousand typically remaining unidentified after one year. Active cold cases in the NAMUS database are over 13,000 (most of which get coverage in the news either regional or national); and if we were to include inactive cases it would be multiples of that number. Further, these type of news stories of cold cases are routine coverage, and are done to assist law enforcement in identification, rather than actually covering a topic worthy of encyclopedic inclusion., In short there is nothing unusual about being an unidentified body, or sadly being a teenager dying from drug use. What we have here is a very clear application of WP:NOT. 4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think race has much to do with it. The NAMUS database has many women of all races in it, and coverage is pretty similar to this or less in most of these cases. Unidentified bodies are not all that uncommon sadly, and a large number go without much media recognition regardless of the demographics of the person who has died. This is particularly true in cases where there is no suspicion of murder, which is the case here. Honestly many of these cases only get coverage during a slow news cycle when there isn't much else to report, and they need something to fill the empty space.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The CNN piece seems ok, other sources seem to Medium and various blogs, so not much for RS. This was 20 yrs ago, I would think most coverage would be archived by now, unsure how the online coverage was then for this event. I'll see what I can turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a Gnewspaper search for "body found Tempe" from April 1, 2002 to May 31, 2022, [1], not much of anything turns up. Seems odd, but I'm not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete for lack of coverage. Not meeting GNG, no coverage of the event found, limited media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Well, yes I did contribute to the expansion of the article, considering how it appeared in 2018 when I first decided to work on the "yearning for expansion" page, as it stood with all nine or so references. The individual who created the article is no longer active on Wiki. I agree there is little material out there, but I didn't create the page.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieronoldham I am not seeing any reasoning based in policy for your keep vote. The fact that an editor created the article and that others such as yourself put work into the article is not relevant to the policies by which we evaluate content. Please take time to read WP:Notability. In order for a keep argument to be valid it needs to demonstrate that the subject passes either WP:BASIC as a person, WP:NEVENT as an event, or more broadly WP:GNG. None of these criteria have been met. In order to keep the article we would need more secondary sources with in-depth significant coverage in order to demonstrate that the topic would pass the relevant policy guidelines. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew where this discussion was headed weight-wise upon clicking on this discussion board, 4meter4 (and have to agree with much)- that was the reasoning behind my reply. The search found almost nothing of substance beyond the likes of missingkids.org entries to populate back in '18 (and it seems like there is not much more to be found five years later). However, I do see some validity in the WP VICTIM argument for keep. There is the likes of CNN and the likes of maricopa.gov. (that should meet significant coverage and weaken the original research idea). That's more than some sparsely refereced stub articles have regarding obscure crime cases which aren't currently flagged for deletion. But then, maybe the article would need more sources?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately primary sources such as missingkids.org and maricopa.gov do not count towards GNG as they are primary source and not secondary sources. WP:GNG policy specifically requires secondary sources. The OR problems are related to the original synthesis of primary sources currently in the article's text. Finding new secondary sources or primary sources doesn't solve the OR problems currently extent in the article's text as currently written. The article would require a complete re-write to solve the WP:SYNTH issues. Further, WP:VICTIM does not apply to this subject as no crime was committed. That policy only applies to situations where the events in question are attached to a crime. In this case the sources specifically stated that there was no evidence that a crime had taken place. As such WP:CRIME/VICTIM does not apply to this subject.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tempe_Girl_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146937112"