Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unexplained disappearances

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. Possible merge with List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Nakon 21:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained disappearances

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

This subject is neither something which can be described beyond the definition (fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY) nor feasible as a list article because of the very broad scope (fails WP:STANDALONE). As currently written, it is not really a list article (which again is not very feasible because of how broad the scope is) and largely duplicates content from the articles List of people who disappeared mysteriously and List of missing ships (which have a much better, definable scope). The subject is better suited for a category. Category:Unexplained disappearances exists and covers the subject adequately.

Note: The article was originally called "Paranormal vanishing" and nominated for deletion in 2006; the result was no consensus, but the discussion focused on the title/subject "paranormal vanishing". The page was moved to the current title without much discussion, but edited to reflect the new title/subject. AHeneen (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertion that this can't be done is belied by the plain fact that we have a reasonable page already. The notability of the topic is confirmed by the existence of entire books about it such as The Disappeared, Greatest Mysteries of the Unexplained, Among the Missing, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if there can be a category, I don't see why there can't be a list. Siuenti (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point which is confirmed by our guideline WP:NOTDUP, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in the nomination, I was not implying that the article should be deleted because the category exists, although I now see how it could be interpreted as such. Rather, I was stating that the subject is best suited to be a category (and not an article) and pointed out that the category exists already. The subject is too broad and there isn't much that can be said about the subject beyond a definition. The subject is therefore best suited to being a stand-alone list (and is currently written like a list), but is still too broad and therefore fails WP:STANDALONE. Therefore the only appropriate way for WP to treat this subject is as a category. AHeneen (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of a coherent topic, and because we already have List of people who disappeared mysteriously. This purported article is not a treatment of any single phenomenon, but a haphazard list of unrelated events (and faeries). The fact that the popular press issues books full of these curiosities is not a convincing argument to do the same here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a distinct topic deserving its own article, and largely duplicates other things. All but one of the individuals mentioned appears in the more comprehensive List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Apart from that we have Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (which is more than adequately covered in its own article), a section about a couple of hoax 'disappearances' and something on fairies. Neiltonks (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't argue keep until this was tightened enough to fill a niche not already served. 'List of hoaxed disappearances', 'List of paranormal entities blamed for disappearances', 'List of folkloric disappearances' - I would be totally down for including those lists and I think they'd be great. As it stands, this is just needless repetition, with the subjects having much better coverage elsewhere. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with careful editing. Most of this article is an incomplete rehash of List of people who disappeared mysteriously, so I support the deletion of sections 1-17. However, other material could be moved: information and citations from the Folklore section belong in the Fairy article, and the Hoaxes info about David Lang and Oliver Larch could cut down and added to the List of hoaxes. I would hate to lose those little bits of WP content by simply deleting this article. Molly-in-md (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another thing I don't get is why someone searching for "unexplained disappearances" shouldn't get any help finding the kind of articles linked by this page. Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, as the two articles are of very similar topics. Tavix | Talk 20:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is notable, but this article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of topics, many without sources. It's perhaps best to WP:BLOWITUP and start over with a coherent article.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fortean POV fork of List of people who disappeared mysteriously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2015 (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.