Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott kleeschulte

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott kleeschulte

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Scott kleeschulte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I thought about tagging this as A7 speedy, but I've put this up for AfD because I don't think we have a precedent for missing persons. My concerns about this article is that (a) the subject is not proven notable (however sad the circumstances), (b) this page amounts to an advert for information and wikipedia is not a soapbox and (c) it appears to allege that someone was involved who has not been charged with any offence and is therefore potentially libelous. A1octopus 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, at least until there is a policy established on missing people which this article would violate. I also added a link to a StLtoday.com (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) article which mentions the Devlin investigation, so that wipes out any libel issues. By the way, I'm not the original author. Realkyhick 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All right, here is how I look at it. Right now, as a missing person, he is considered to be alive. As such, a biography on him must adhere to WP:BIO. This article does not have multiple non trivial sources that assert his notability, so it fails that test. There are external links that provide information, but nothing new has been uncovered since his disappearnace. If he is dead, then he is just another lost / kidnapped child that was never found. That does not make him notable, thousands of kids go missing every year. Wikipedia is not a missing persons network. --Cyrus Andiron 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I appreciate the sentiment and the extra effort to find the child, really I do, but existing Wikipedia policies (WP:BIO and WP:NOT) apply directly here, methinks. This is not the place to advertise even for a good cause, but I daresay very few people would see this article anyway. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyrus. If there are sources about this kid (as opposed to being solely about the fact that he disappeared) then that's one thing, but there aren't that many nine-year-olds who achieve independent notability.  RGTraynor  20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, There are now more links so now there is no libel issue, plus it will make the family feel good knowing that after all this time people are still thinking of scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.255.42.217 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).— User:70.255.42.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Having re-read all our inclusion policies since I made this nomination, my interpretation of the notability on an alleged or actual kidnap victim and/or missing person would be as follows - The person would be notable if (a) Before they went missing they were notable (eg not simply notable because they are missing now) or (b) (in the case of a kidnapping) the kidnapper is notable (but that would only warrant details of the victim on the kidnapper's page) or (c) if the case itself has become notable or notorious. In this case, therefore, I can see no grounds for notability - the missing person isn't notable, there is no legally proven kidnapper, and the case itself is not notable outside the locale of the events because there is no criminal case (yet) in respect of this article's subject. A1octopus 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further Comment I note that the alleged (by the article) kidnapper is notable (Michael J. Devlin) but he is not the alleged kidnapper in law (hasn't been charged with this one). A1octopus 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think his links to Devlin, plus the reopening of the case with considerable coverage from multiple reliable media, make him notable. I also think that interpreting the guidelines to say that a kidnapped person must have been notable before the kidnapping doesn't make much sense; see Elizabeth Smart. Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Coment: In the case of Elizabeth Smart the case itself is notable. We cannot accept the notability of this article's subject on the grounds of the case being notable because the only case concerning this person currently is that he is a missing person. The alleged criminal activities of Devlin will not apply to this person unless Devlin is charged and convicted of them. Otherwise we'd be doing "Trial by Wikipedia." A1octopus 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • We're not trying Devlin, we're merely reporting what legitimate press outlets have themselves reported, which is that Devlin is being possibly linked to this case. Realkyhick 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per A1octopus's arguments. --Stormie 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)\
• KEEP! per Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC) comments. Scott is notable at least in the St.Louis area after almost 19 years people still remember him not to mention all of the media attention he has gotten because of devlin — User:Kaylak07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak Delete He is already mentioned in the article about Devlin. there's enough reason to keep it there regardless of BLP. There's no reason to keep it here. This is not the purpose of WP. And even so, it's already in all the mirrors. DGG 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep already voted above Jacob Wetterling and Dalton Mesarchik have Wikipedia entries so should Scott! 70.255.42.217 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)— User:70.255.42.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Waxing is not normally considered much of an argument. In the case of the two articles you cite, however, one has a law named after him and the other is unquestionably the victim of an unsolved murder, so they do have claim to notabilty. A1octopus 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per A1octopus's arguments. Indrian 06:33, 21 April 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.