Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Pendley Biggers

: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 -- Rationale: If we count noses, the deletes have it by a mile. But we don't count noses, we evaluate strength of argument. The main keep arguments seem to center around the notability of the disappearance, that it got natinonal media coverage, and that there might be something unusual about the disappearance, or that it might in future be that "the person may well be known for more". The delete arguments mostly refute the keeps, pointing to WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, and reminding us that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for a keep (or a delete either). Also we are reminded of WP:CRYSTALBALL

The keep arguments are not compelling arguments and are more than refuted by those commenting in favor of deletion. Per WP:BLP1E one event does not compel notability, unless it's really a big deal. Mere mentions in multiple sources aren't enough. Per WP:NOT#NEWS routine things like this disappearance aren't notable. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we cannot base notability on future events that may not happen. Notability assertions have been refuted. This person is, if we are extremely charitable, marginally notable, and very marginally at best. For living persons (and let us hope she is living) we should default to delete in cases of marginal notability. But under a more reasoned evaluation of notability, she's not notable, and the crime is not notable (so a move to an article about the crime doesn't fit either). We are left with no possible outcome other than Delete. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Pamela Pendley Biggers]]=

:{{la|Pamela Pendley Biggers}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Pamela Pendley Biggers}})

Person known only for one event - WP:BLP1E. Rd232 talk 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment PLEASE READ:

:There are numerous other individuals listed on Wikipedia that are "known only for one event" including Maura Murray, Lana Stempien, Benjaman Kyle, and many more. This individual is a missing person whose case has received substantial media coverage by CNN, America's Most Wanted, Nancy Grace and more. Her case is ongoing. If this article is a candidate for deletion, there are many others that should receive the same treatment.

:I have no personal attachment to this case, and am writing this entry for educational purposes only. I have put a lot of time and effort into research of the topic. Please do not delete this article.

Coverage by reliable sources:

CNN/Nancy Grace: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/14/grace.coldcase.biggers/index.html, America's Most Wanted: http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/brief.cfm?id=52948, Texas Equusearch: http://texasequusearch.org/2009/01/the-search-for-pam-biggers/

Also, this case has drawn attention to the "Amber Alert"-type notification system for missing/endangered senior citizens, called a "Silver Alert," as noted here: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=110632&catid=15

:Thank you!MJW85 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: "PLEASE READ" unsigned comment makes good point - what is the standard for missing persons cases, because they are very often WP:BLP1Es, yet have articles. --Milowent (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article isn't perfect, could do with a bit of work especialy the bit about contacting authorities but There seems to have been enough media coverage to assert notability GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (Probably) Delete I am unsure if we deserve an article for every disappeared person: this case seems to fit WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS pretty well. If there is substantial coverage, I'd keep it, but it seems there is not much more than a single CNN news report and a single WJHG one. I am willing to change my !vote if more coverage comes out. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject at hand is more unique than other missing person biographies on Wikipedia, as it deals with mental illness and that fact that this individual may very well be found alive and in doing so reveal further details that will published in the future. What warrants a decision to remove one missing person entry from Wikipedia, and not the hundreds of others? Case in point: List of people who disappeared mysteriously. This individual may very well end up being known for more than what the article currently contains. Like all other entries based on a currently living person, the end of the "story" has not been written. --MJW85 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:*When the end of story will be written, and will be notable, come back and be my guest. In the meantime, I invite you to read WP:CRYSTALBALL. Everyone of us alive could be notable in the future, but this does not mean we must write on everyone of us for this single reason before it happens. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG: there does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is merely an essay, and there is no consensus that drawing attention to similar articles is forbidden. I'm OK with discussing "other stuff" because it helps draw attention to holes in the guidelines or other articles that should meet similar fates.) Location (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:You should not !vote two times in the same discussion (you're of course welcome to discuss it). It is also good practice to sign your comments. Would you mind putting your comment below your above keep !vote? --Cyclopia (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Never mind, it has been moved.--Cyclopia (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::For clarification, the previous comment by Cyclopia was referring to a comment that was made by MJW85 then moved: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela_Pendley_Biggers&diff=next&oldid=315890188]. Location (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Ouch, sorry! --Cyclopia (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP is not a newspaper. One event - and although it would be nice, we are not here to provide information as to how to contact authorities. We cannot have a bio for everyone who disappears. Law type! snype? 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting case, but this isn't an encyclopedic biography. It's an article on her going missing. She's not otherwise notable. That's BLP1E. The coverage also doesn't seem significant and NOTNEWS surely applies here as well. As for the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, every article is different, of course, but I've nominated one of those for deletion and I've asked for opinions on another. Not sure what to do with it. Point is, even though it's an essay, it's still an argument that carries no weight. It just lists more articles that fail to meet policy. Lara 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - in this case, there does not seem to be sufficient coverage to justify keeping the article; WP:BLP1E applies. Robofish (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not enough of a significant event to avoid 'NOTNEWS' issues. Quantpole (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. I'm also concerned about the speculation within the article regarding her mental health (regardless of the sources) - Alison ❤ 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete we're not a newspaper (even though some wish we were) and BLP1E seals the deal. JBsupreme (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.