Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel

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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of thing happens fairly frequently and is of absolutely zero encyclopdic interest. TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. And just because peple with morbid intests dig up these stories now and again it it does not mean they are of any lasting interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately Amy Wroe Bechtel is not notable for anything other than having disappeared. A plethora of news articles does not make notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Amy Wroe Bechtel, it's about her disappearance. And a plethora of news article actually does make a topic notable -- see WP:SIGCOV. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominators "morbid interest" in others "morbid interest" in these kind of articles are interesting. Anyway, this is clearly a IDONTLIKEIT nom based on NOTNEWS. Clearly this case has received plenty of attention. The article is kind of short but that can be fixed. This article covers both WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE. Even the user !voting delete also uses IDONTLIKEIT when referring to the fact that the article subject has been the fixture of plenty of media coverage ever since the disappearance. Tiredly referring to NOTNEWS without going further into your thoughts is just pointless.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article creator is a serial creator of worthless articles. The amount of time and energy I devote to attempting to purge Wikipedia of this guff is nothing to the amount of time the article creaor devotes to this guff.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your characterization of me as a "serial creator of worthless articles". I'm not sure what basis you have for that. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also repudiate the implications of bad faith iplicit here. @I don't like it my curvy pink butt. I believe this article should be deleted because the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia article because it is of no lasting interest. There will always be articles on unsolved murders & sisappearances; the topic is of interest but the individual example rarely so.TheLongTone (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated three Disappearance/Murder of.. articles all three has been kept. BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helped by the fact that there is a nasty little cabal who get busy canvassing eacother when one of these worthless articles is nominated. I think the number of editors who agree that these articles should go vindicates me. And I only got into this because I nominated an article I came across while new article patrolling; I almost immediately got accused of wikistalking merely because I nominated another article by the editor. These people are not acting in good faith.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. Without the over-the-top remarks about others. BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep This case has inspired ongoing coverage, including this August 2016 [1] long article in Runner's World.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also seems to have inspired ongoing coverage as well. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on the extensive coverage it has received over the years. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - Adults go "missing" all the time so it is not really encyclopedic, being mentioned in a TV entertainment program doesnt give it notability either. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant, in comparison to notability and sources-BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications of notability or significance sufficient for an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a news story; repeat coverage is indicative of missing white woman syndrome and therefore should not be taken as an indicator of notability, but rather as "routine" (for this type of case) coverage. Sandstein 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: missing white woman syndrome is a good one! Describes this article perfectly. Runner's World would be the outlet to continue the coverage as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS; a sad occurrence but not uncommon around the world. And just because it was a segment on a TV show does not mean lasting notability. I am sure there are many such cases which have been featured on similar shows which have no articles and there are, unfortunately, many similar occurrences which are never on a TV show which also do not have articles herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant. Of course there are other similar cases but for that matter we dont find a sportmans not notable because there are other sportmen who are just as good. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

has anybody cited WP:OTHERSTUFF? . I thought not. I don't understand the rest of the above para either.TheLongTone (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user above states that its not uncommon around the world. that is Otherstuffexists. people disappears all the time, but that is irrelevant to individual notability. BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. While an unfortunate event, I don't see enough to show that is notable compared to similar disappearances. The coverage is on the lower side and mostly local. Usually a crime would be notable if it, for example, leads to some lasting secondary effect (a change in a law, a link to another crime etc). I don't see that happening here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"mostly "local news" does not trump overall coverage and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified above that it doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:LASTING. We do consider the type of coverage. Local coverage can make literally anything appear notable (as I remember one editor saying, their dog eating up the gardens in their small town would become notable enough, if we use local sources for GNG). The quality, the amount of detail and the frequency of coverage does matter here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2016 (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.