Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Joanne Elaine Coughlin

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Star Mississippi 01:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disappearance of Joanne Elaine Coughlin

Disappearance of Joanne Elaine Coughlin (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No indication that this case is any different than the myriad missing persons cases that, unfortunately, occur regularly. WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM apply here as the subject is notable solely for her disappearance and the circumstances of her disappearance are not particularly notable. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I think the nomination logic is flawed. Both guides mentioned above are designed to help editors decide between biographical articles (i.e. Joanne Elaine Coughlin) or event articles (i.e. Disappearance of Joanne Elaine Coughlin) and who ever created the events realised she was notable for one event and did what the guidance guided. To be specific WP:BIO1E says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified and WP:VICTIM says A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Gpedia article . (bold emphasis mine) So then, is the event worthy of an article? As the article looks a few minutes ago, perhaps not, we tend to want at least some impact years later, but as I found news from 2019 and just added it in, then that suggests to me that this is a notbale event, still making news almost 50 years later. See WP:SUSTAINED CT55555 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:EVENTCRIT, as well as WP:NOTNEWS, per the second prong of the notability guideline. The WP:EVENT guideline helps us determine how to identify what should be excluded from the encyclopedia as WP:NOTNEWS. For this article, the Charley Project blog is the first of the four sources, and an archived page with basic information from the Ohio AG is the second source. Per the criteria, there is no indication of a WP:LASTING effect. In 2019, there was local coverage of her disappearance and the cold case investigation, but no indication that her disappearance has been a precedent or catalyst for something else or had a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance. The WP:GEOSCOPE also appears to be limited and localized, and there is no demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group, so this weighs against notability. The WP:DEPTH of coverage is also limited, as demonstrated by the available coverage (my own search has not found more in independent and reliable sources). There also does not appear to be much WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this cold case. There also does not appear to be wide-ranging coverage in WP:DIVERSE sources. Based on the guidelines and WP:NOT policy, deletion appears appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom and Beccaynr. Gpedia is not a memorial. While it is tragic the sources do not reach the criteria of WP:NBIO: On Gpedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Gpedia as a written account of that person's life. There are around 6500-7000 unsolved cases a year and over 200K unsolved murder and missing persons cases just in the US. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talkcontribs) 01:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as per Gpedia is not a memorial (however, if her case is finally closed one day, an article would be warranted then, IMO. TH1980 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC))Reply[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.
The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.