Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Angela Hammond

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Angela Hammond

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is probably additional local coverage, but the event itself is relatively trivial DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. As bad as I feel typing this sentence out, kidnappings are common enough to not be inherently notable with only local coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mlb96. May well have had local coverage, however the case doesn't really seem to have gained any wider notability and wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an untypical (an adult kidnapping witnessed in which the witness gave pursuit in their car) kidnapping case reported widely in local newspapers at the time and on many anniversaries since. Several decades later it's nontrivial enough to be the subject of several different podcast episodes and featured on tv's unsolved mysteries twice with the creator singling it out as the most haunting.--Darrelljon (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the unnamed podcasts do you believe represents a reliable source? Nothing at the article Unsolved Mysteries suggests it would meet WP:RS. --JBL (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could several podcast listings at Apple be considered a reliable source?;
Who Killed...?

The Milk Carton Series

True Crime all the time

Trace Evidence 061

The Trail Went Cold

True Crime with Craig

Our True Crime --Darrelljon (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's seven links; which of them do you think meet any of the positive criteria of WP:RS? For example, does any of them have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or clear editorial oversight, or are produced by subject-matter experts? Are any of them cited repeatedly by unambiguously reliable sources? --JBL (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rewrite, better to remedy it than delete, since it potentially has notability and the details of the crime were too sparse, as well as the process of investigations and outcome should be expanded --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment To rewrite it, we would need substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or podcasts . Where are they? DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry: DGG, JayBeeEll, before a provide an !vote on this one, can inquire of the two of you (as the most established editors I can recognize in this discussion and also coincidentally the two understandably pushing the WP:RS angle the hardest here), why are we dismissing Unsolved Mysteries as a pretty significant mainstream source here? Is there a consensus I am unaware of deprecating it for this kind of use? I wouldn't say anyone would hold it up as having the weight of today's longform media on this kinds of cases, but it does have some degree of profile and my incidental experience of it is that the cold case segments are non-trivial in depth. Remember, we are talking about notability here and not WP:V, so while I won't go as far as to say that editorial controls are non-factor here, but the question of whether or not the coverage of Unsolved Mysteries can provide support for various assertions, but rather whether and how far that outlet's coverage goes to help and establish the degree of coverage, not the veracity of/consensus regarding the particulars. Combining the local coverage, the presumably somewhat detailed Unsolved Mysteries piece, and even discounting the numerous podcasts per reasonable RS concerns, I'm still kind of inclined to !vote very weak keep on this one, if only on an SNG-mediated basis. But I'd like to get your read on the questions raised above before I settle on a final position. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow Rise, There is a large industry of sensationalist, fake-serious investigation of fringe paranormal silliness and old crimes. For example, I'm sure if I browsed the local grocery store tabloid shelves I could find the latest information about Jon Benet Ramsey, and there are dozens of books about the Legends of Alcatraz. Those sources are trash, failing to meet the basic requirements of WP:RS, and shouldn't be used as sources. The Wikipedia page for Unsolved Mysteries suggests strongly to me that it's part of that industry. (I am not otherwise familiar with it.) Sometimes (e.g., Ramsey) trash sources are written about things for which there are also good sources; but then our articles should stand only on the good sources. --JBL (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no doubt on the industry of salaciousness, but that's kind of a too-generalized argument to govern here, and (no disrespect intended, but) reading the Wikipedia article about a given outlet cannot suffice as the standard for the amount of information and context sufficient to argue for essentially deprecating a source. I think we'd at least need to get an opinion at WP:RSN as to that before we oppose the article on that basis. For the record, here is the source segment in question. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about it as a source for the proposed purpose here. On the one hand, it utilizes subject interviews and presents documentation, but on the other hand, it has these clearly less than ideal dramatizations interspersed in-between segments, some of which are certainly speculative at least in some details. Still, even if we wouldn't use this as a source to establish the verifiability of particular facts, I think it probably suffices to outline the contours of the story and establish some degree of media interest, especially when taking together with the more local coverage--which local coverage is, in turn, probably more reliable for purposes of supporting certain factual claims about the disappearance. I'll grant you, it's a borderline case at least; I'm still waffling on which way to go.. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dismiss Unsolved Mysteries as a source , because it carries content like this and nothing ekse, and is therefore indiscriminate.We need some coverage in general sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is a difficult one because I for one enjoy a good article of encyclopedic value, in the end i find myself agreeing to the rationale by both DGG and JayBeeEll. Celestina007 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For me this is a well sourced article. The case has plenty of hits on Google. Article needs a rewrite and c/e but that is not a reason for deletion. Falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.