Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maura Murray (2nd nomination)

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Murray

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

WP:BLP1E. She's known only for being missing. Coverage is local also. So she's limited to local notability. Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Lara 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Page has been moved to: Disappearance of Maura Murray - --Cyclopia (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is some media coverage, over time, which would make me err on the side of keep. However it seems to fall within BLP1E pretty well, and her case is not unusual or discussed enough to put it above the radar.Keep and rename as per sources brought by user Fences&Windows below seem effectively enough for the article to be kept. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD box not yet on page. Also, related AFD (i.e., a missing person is almost always notable for only 1 event...going missing): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela_Pendley_Biggers --Milowent (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually assuming my maths skills haven't yet deserted me, the consensus forming at that AfD shows nothing of the sort. The fact that your opinion in it was that she was notable is another thing entirely. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media coverage is not enough to pull it outside of WP:BLP1E or, for that matter, WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A missing persons case. Per WP:BLP1E. I feel great sympathy for her, her family and friends, but that is not enough reason to have an encyclopedia article, as matters stand now. Edison (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing administrator When starting this discussion Lara failed to tag the article with the AfD template. I have since done so, but the debate may need to be kept open for some additional time. Finally, I concur with the nomination. Delete. Limited coverage and limited notability. AniMate^draw 22:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically TW failed. >_> Lara 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Twinkle. So helpful... until it is not. Still, delete per NOTNEWS. AniMate^draw 06:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Disappearance of Maura Murray. This is not a flash-in-the-pan case. ABC News just covered this case four days ago:[1] As for it being apparently run-of-the-mill, the facts of the case are certainly mysterious - she was apparently in a car crash, but then immediately disappeared without trace. That's not your average missing person. It's been covered by ABC News before,[2][3] and in the Boston Globe many many times,[4][5][6][7] which isn't your average local newspaper. Associated Press picked up the story earlier this year:[8], Fox News' Crime Time:[9], Nancy Grace on CNN:[10], another report on CNN:[11], even WorldNetDaily have covered it:[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49328] Her's was one of two cases covered in a 20/20 episode, Missing Coeds,[12] and there are scores of examples of local news coverage. Fences&Windows 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me notice. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Responding here from your comment on my talk page. I still believe this fails NOTNEWS as I don't see any historical notability here. If you were to write these sources into a retitled article, I'd be less-inclined to argue for a deletion. Lara 00:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lara on the necessity of a new title. I just moved the page to Disappearance of Maura Murray. Hope not to have been too bold. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lara is interpreting NOTNEWS too widely here. NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but neither of those applies here. The case definitely meets the WP:GNG, as it has been covered indepth in multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage is national and ongoing, so it meets the criteria for notability of criminal acts, which covers disappearances where the police suspect a criminal act: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts. I certainly will write the sources I found into the article tomorrow; I regret not sourcing it properly before. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont Know Keep i would argue that this fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E but the girl who was killed at the red sox rally thing after the world series in 04 has or had her own page for just being killed but if you could rework this article Into The Dissaperance of Maura Murrey then Keep but jenna is right its not your average missing person a car crash and never seen again? AKWARD Big Padres Dude 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that the article has been moved, however that fails to address the fact that this still fails WP:BLP1E as a bio, or WP:NOTNEWS as an article on the disappearance. I do not see any lasting significance here. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The news routinely reports on young, missing females. Usually white. This is not historical. Or interesting. Her CDs were left in her car along with a book? Do tell :P Law_{type! snype?} 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" and "historical" are just your opinions and interestigness is not an objective criteria. I don't find it interesting either, but the media thought otherwise. BLP1E does not apply since the rename -we're talking of the event. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that her family and friends will read this discussion, please have more respect. Fences&Windows 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BLP1E and NOTNEWS. No special claim to notability, and not enough coverage. — Jake Wartenberg 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must protest very strongly at these calls for deletion. Vaguely referring to policy is not the same as reasoned argument. They are incorrect for three reasons: 1. NOTNEWS does not say what everyone thinks it says, as I explained above. NOTNEWS is not a blanket reason to not cover events. 2. This is a possible criminal event, so it is covered by our notability rules on criminal events, not by BLP1E. 3. There is ample national American news coverage, which I have linked to above, and which I will now incorporate into the article. Fences&Windows 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sources added. National in depth coverage has included Fox's Line Up, Nancy Grace's Cold Cases, CNN's American Morning, 20/20, and Montel Williams. Fences&Windows 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it falls under BLP1E. WP:BLP is policy. — Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me phrase that better: citing BLP1E as a reason for deletion is not appropriate. The article was always about her disappearance and is now titled to reflect this, so it is in compliance with what BLP1E says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." As the event is notable, we should keep the article. If you want to delete, you'd better not simply cite NOTNEWS and BLP1E, as they aren't valid reasons to delete this article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chalk me up as one of those who greatly dislikes the inclusion of articles simply because the subjects kick up a lot of ephemeral fuss on the 24-hour-news cycle. That being said, the renaming took BLP1E out of the running, the article is focused on the event rather than on the person, it's heavily sourced and from non-local sources as well. While NOTNEWS is also being cited, the text is quite clear: it pertains mostly to individuals, not events, and only those events which are "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" are specifically enjoined; I'd hate to be the one daring to make a case for the Boston Globe, ABC News or CNN being tabloids. I'd like to advocate deletion, but legitimate policy grounds to do so just aren't present here. RGTraynor 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in this case, I feel there is sufficient coverage, over a sufficiently long period of time, for WP:BLP1E to not apply. Some disappearances are notable, and this seems to be one of them. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the things said above about NOTNEWS are not correct. It certainly does apply to routine news coverage about events such as kidnappings, murders, and executions, and it does apply to routine announcements in non tabloid publications such as say the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal. However, the fact that this particular disappearence has received repeated coverage at intervals for at least 5 years (2004-2009) means that it is not just a transient news event and thus is notable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. Regarding NOTNEWS, as Rusty pointed out, NOTNEWS does apply to this sort of coverage. It is routine for local newspapers to cover missing persons in their area. Tabloid journalism is not limited to tabloid newspapers. Tabloids just print pretty much exclusively tabloid journalism. Specifically speaking on this article as it is now, BLP1E does indeed no longer apply because the article has been retitled to the event, which is what 1E dictates. Whether or not NOTNEWS continues to apply depends on how significant the non-local coverage is. Are the pieces original stories or are they merely reprints of the local? WP:N/CA comes in at this point. Missing person cases where criminal conduct is suspected are not inherently notable. In fact, it gives a strong argument against keeping some of the recent cases we've seen come up at AFD.
Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.
So the question is, how "intense" has the media coverage been, and do we consider this a "high profile" case? I think of Lacy Peterson when I am considering what a high profile missing persons case is. Lara 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you see national media stories like this [13] 4 years after the event, and local media stories like [14] even more recently, and when a google search for Maura Murray yeilds 690,000 hits I think you have passed the threshold of a transient news story. This doesn't seem like even a marginal case to me. There are plenty of marginally source articles about one news cycle only topics that deserve deletion, but I don't see this as beeing one of them. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it appears that this particular case is being used as part of a campaign to have a cold case unit created for NH [15], which would make it part of the "incorporation in an important public debate" notability recognized by for example WP:News articles.
  - Comment: In addressing what is and is not in NOTNEWS, allow me to quote the pertinent section: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." If anyone can point out where the rule states that news coverage of kidnappings, murders and executions (for instance) falls under its aegis, feel free. RGTraynor 01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You started your quote late. The sentence before what you quoted says: " However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability ". That wording applies to all news. However, it doesn't (at least as far as I am concerned) apply here to this particular article because this event has received repeated coverage years after the fact. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The section you are quoting is not from WP:NOTNEWS. In point of fact, the sentence before the section I quoted is "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." You're quoting from the GNG, a guideline generally trumped by verifiability. RGTraynor 08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct. My quote is from WP:notability. However it is still applicable here. The guidelines work together.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and WP:BLP1E. Non-biographical article. Chuthya (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact it is no more listed as a biography -it has been moved for this reason. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. BLP1E applies to any article. Law_{type! snype?} 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" and a vaguewave at BLP1E isn't reasoned argument. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E applies to biographies of people only known for one event, not to "every article". They way BLP1E applies in this case is the following wording, which I think is being overlooked: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event ... a redirect of the person's name to the event article [is] usually the better option." Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) should be our guide here. This is not a biography of Maura Murray, it is about her disappearance, a notable event covered many times by local and national media over a five year period. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is no longer relevant as the article has been renamed to "Disappearance of Maura Murray". That leaves only the notability concern and I can't see it given the amount of both local and national coverage. I think the original nominator tried to claim all the coverage was local but that is silly as Nancy Grace/CNN are not local. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator, the sources included at nomination were all local, and national coverage may not have been clear from a quick search. So the claim wasn't silly, just wrong. Fences&Windows 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several comments above about BLP1E no longer being applicable as the article has been moved. I think that would be a fair call to make if the title did not include her name. If there was some connection to another case we could rename it to Coed disappearances or whatever, but this article is still about 1 event, connected to 1 person. In my view, this still clearly falls under BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that no articles on events where a single person has been the main or only subject involved would be allowed, regardless of the event notability? This makes little sense and WP:BLP1E explicitly says that the article should cover the event and not the person, that is what is happening here. BLP1E is to avoid having "biographies" where all the weight is made to a single event, not to prohibit covering events themselves. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as renamed The event is notable per WP:GNG and WP:N/CA as her disappearance has received “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Renaming and reworking of the article correctly applies WP:BLP1E in that the article now covers the event and not the person. Nolamgm (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (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.