Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delimar Vera Cuevas

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 per numerous well-reasoned comments below, specifically that there is no evidence that the cultural or istorical significance of this case is sufficient to overwhelm the pressing WP:BLP concerns it raises. Concern for process is all very well in its place, but poorly sourced biographies of people who were "apparently" a kidnapping victim once would not seem to me to be that place. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delimar Vera Cuevas

Delimar Vera Cuevas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

10-year-old girl who "made headlines early in 2004" and should not have to live the rest of her life with a Wikipedia article reminding everyone for all eternity of what she went through. There's no evidence of long-term encyclopedicity demonstrated here. FCYTravis 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article can be shown to have encyclopedic content that highlights why this case is important/notable it should be kept. Other than that I have no reason to want it kept or deleted, but I'm happy to see it go through the correct process. violet/riga (t) 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This should not have been undeleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Per which speedy criterion? Prolog 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy an article that has been around for over three years? That would be rather insulting to those that edited the article and it is only fair that it goes through due process, especially when you have not been able to give a relevant criterion. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am willing to insult editors with sufficiently poor judgment to write this article. Phil Sandifer 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. I see no lasting notability here, and no need to sensationalise the plight of a victim. I think the speedy is in order per WP:BLP... and the undelete is OUT of order. that this was around for 3 years is more of a thing of shame than a reason to prolong the mistake. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unfortunately there are hundreds of kidnapping cases every year, but this article fails to establish what made this instance unique or worthy of being an encyclopedia article. --Ozgod 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and Lar. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic - not even violet riga seems to claim it is. She appears to have restored this 'out of process for process reasons - which is insane. -Doc^g 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Do not be afraid of following process in deleting articles. Do not refer to the actions of admins in following process as "insane." Whise this kidnapping case might technically have two or more newspaper articles with substantial coverage of the case, it is, sadly, an all too common event. The unusual part is the mother using CSI-style techniques and actually getting her child back. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive, and not all news stories are encyclopedic even with multiple stories about the events and people, I do not see a loss to the Wikipedia project in deleting this. The argument for deleting it because it might cause embarrassment to the subject later in life is not convincing, since Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I seriously question the ethics of anybody who seriously argues for keeping articles on barely notable children. Phil Sandifer 14:32, 30 May 2007 (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.