Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassroots coverage of Natalee Holloway

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grassroots coverage of Natalee Holloway

I don't think there's anything here that isn't already in the Natalee Holloway article, or can't easily fit there.

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - just slap a merge tag into it --Philo 12:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see anything to merge. What's not original research is already well represented, so this is a deletion candidate for redundancy. Geogre 16:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a redundant article that adds nothing to the topic of Natalee Holloway.--Isotope23 17:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. As a second choice, merge anything deemed valuable into Natalee_Holloway#Media_coverage. --Metropolitan90 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I started this article. This case has generated a lot of controversy across the board. The blogs are notable because there are strong feelings the case which are not represented in the mainstream media (MSM). Due to the Aruban system, where the prosecutor rarely makes press conferences and information does not want to be free, even the MSM turned to these bloggers for information. I find it interestng (and therefore notable) that a strong contingent wants to delete references to the blogs, as well as the other subjects related to this case such as the sex trade theory, the drug cartels and racism in Aruba. Joaquin Murietta 05:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything here worth merging. Conspiracy theories are by nature unverifiable. Strong feelings come with POV. External links serve a specific purpose in an encyclopedia which may or may not reflect their "importance" in other contexts. If a contributor wishes to discuss the case without respect to WP policy there are better forums out there. Dystopos 05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the parent article for Holloway, if there is anything to merge. Yamaguchi先生 09:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This adds nothing. AlistairMcMillan 10:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unacceptable blog promotion, duplicate info in a meaningless fork --Carlos Prats 10:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, promotes blogs, and information about them, which is a legitimate footnote to the holloway story should be merged into the Natalee Holloway page. No reason to have this as a separate page.
• Delete, WP:NOT a web directory. --Me or a Robin 10:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. —Seselwa 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. Xoloz 14:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - say no to the blog evangelists. I would err on deleting on merging a Press coverage of Natalee Holloway article anyway, let alone blog coverage of it. What about a Wikipedia coverage of Natalee Holloway article? - Hahnchen 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I started this article and it looks like it is about to be deleted. So I am adding what I told Yamla in response to her inquiry:

A brief paragraph on my perspective, I started Grassroots coverage of Natalee Holloway because the blogs that link to media coverage were continually deleted in the Natalee Holloway article. The same people went over to the new article and voted to AfD it as nn blogcruft etc. If that is consensus, then I think the Kuroshin reference in the Natalee Holloway article should be deleted. Kuroshin's sole "coverage" is what is conceded to be a "profanity-laced editorial". But the blogs which act as mini-encyclopedias of media coveragev videos, ( e.g. www.blogsfornatalee.com and joranvandersloot.blogspot.com ) are continually deleted.

I can understand the anti-blog attitude, but a couple of the blogs have no outside posts, they are, like I said, mini enyclopedias of the news coverage. But they keep getting deleted from the Natalee Holloway article. It is interesting that the case evokes so many emotions, and has brought several Aruban govt. officials over to Wikipedia. Well, time will tell. Thanks for your votes and your consideration of this AfD. Joaquin Murietta 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, both on Talk:Natalee Holloway and in edit summaries, if you have a case as to why a particular External Link is useful and encyclopedic, make the argument on the the Talk Page so that a consensus can be reached. That's how the Kuro5hin link became part of the article after I and others had been deleting it several times. Be aware that Wikipedia does have policy for external links (Wikipedia:External links) which favors adding information to the article rather than just building a link farm. The argument in favor of Kuro5hin's editorial was that it had achieved exceptional notice among discussions about the case, as evidenced by its ranking in Google searches. It sounds like a decent case can be made for some of these others, but I maintain it's your responsibility to seek consensus rather than forking to new articles that are obvious candidates for deletion. Dystopos 05:22, 14 November 2005 (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.