Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shasta Groene

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 no consensus. W.marsh 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shasta Groene

Shasta Groene (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

The subject of this article may have seemed notable for a time of news coverage about the AMBER alert, but this individual is not notable and there is little reason to having an article for them. Whatever hype there may have been in the media has long passed and we should not set a precedent of keeping record of every single record of an AMBER alert and news story. The article also needlessly violates the privacy of the subject and her family. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Cowman109^Talk 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep-This is a major news story, even years later it is still making headlines today!- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070123-1515-wst-duncanslayings.html This is an encyclopedia not a privacy service.Tommypowell 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  It seems that the murderer is more notable than the girl herself. This article could potentially be merged into that article, but I see no encyclopedic purpose in having one on her. Cowman109^Talk 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The abduction is notable, the girl is not. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AniMate 03:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I must admit that I am not in favor of keeping articles on everyone who was ever mentioned in a newspaper ever, which is a trend lately.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmz5. Montco 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per bovineguy. Prometheus^-X303- 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Tommypowell. Furthermore, the story is currently back in the news, her relevance is back up in my mind. eveningscribe 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Tommypowell. I think it should stay in light of the recent events with Mr. Duncans pending federal case and knowing she will play a key role - And how could you say the girl is not notable that would be like saying "Megan Kanka is not notable because she was the victim".So if we take the delete comments would we not have to delete Jessica Lunsford or Polly Klass or anyone else who was in a situation like this. Redsoxunixgeek 07:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would go along with deleting those articles you listed, except in the cases where they got a "law" or an "alert" named after them. Feel free to nominate them for deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial site for crime victims unless they meet the same standards for notability as a scientist, an author, a musician, a political candidate or anyone else per WP:BIO. Edison 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge To Joseph E. Duncan III, if there is anything here that isn't already there. This story is definitely notable, but there is not enough biographical information here to warrant a separate article. Merge Dylan Groene as well. -SpuriousQ 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- notability does not diminish with time (see WP:N) so an argument that they may have once been notable but no longer are is invalid. Tarinth 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  In this case, I argue that this article was never notable and should not have had an article in the first place. Nothing came out of this case but some news stories that soon died out, as opposed to say, the children whose abductions led to the creation of laws or alert systems. Cowman109^Talk 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Encyclopedic notability requires more than 15 minutes of fame. The only sources cited in the article are fro July 2 and 3, 2005, when she was in the news. This is not a newspaper, and not Wikinews, and not Victimpedia. Whether she is in an editor's "mind" has zero bearing on whether she meets the standard for notability, and as the article now stands, she does not. Reprintsof the same story do not add to notability. If she becomes notable during the upcoming trial, the article could be recreated. Edison 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the removal of this notable subject does not improve our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Joseph E. Duncan III. Likewise other abductees. "Victim of.." (like "husband of..." or "friend of..." or "brother of...") a notable person doesn't transfer to the other person, especially when there's no info about them that isn't or shouldn't be contained in the notable person's article. Shaundakulbara 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Merge and redirect what be relevant to article on events and murderer/abductor. A solo stub article on innocent surviving child victim feels inappropriate.—MURGH ^disc. 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This girl is very notable in my opinion. To come out alive with that creep Duncan, after what he did to her family, is remarkable. Fighting for Justice 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep a crime --or anything else-- which attracts substantial media attention is notable, and forever notable. Thats the whole point of N. but I would remove the picture as a privacy violation, even though it may have appeared elsewhere.
• MergeMerge To Joseph E. Duncan III. Too little biographical content not relating to him. User:Dimadick
• Delete per original nom. WMMartin 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Does not pass the will all references in the article be verifiable in 10 years test. Simply not notable. Jerry lavoie 23:19, 29 January 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.