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.
See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ANYBIO. As far as I can see, this was a death by accidental drowning. Yes, it generated a lot of news coverage - and some wild speculation re: possible abductors - for the brief period that the subject was missing but there isn't really anything noteworthy in the long term. Sitush (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:Notability (people) says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The article does not fail that test. Akld guy (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Notability (people) is not relevant here. The article is not about the person, it is about the event. Nor for that. Matter does ANYBIO as nom statement as it is not a biography.ClubOranjeT 09:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EVENTCRITERIA, specifically Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. I see "nothing further"; this event is not of enduring historical significance. Basically a local news story with a bit of speculative hype because it involved a missing child. ClubOranjeT 09:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generated coverage in 2009-2011, and even in 2017 - [1]. Alot of coverage. We decide notability of events (criminal or otherwise) based on coverage - not based on editor opinion of notability. The example in WP:NCRIME is actually quite relevant - "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.". In this case, there actually were lasting issues regarding maintenance of storm drains and other infrastructure safety related issues - estimated to cost quite a bit of money - [2].Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What has NCRIME actually got to do with this? Was there a corporate manslaughter charge? I thought it was an accidental death. In additions, lots of things attract plenty of coverage and yet are still considered unsuitable for articles. I presume also that you are aware of WP:OSE? - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the quoted example from NCRIME above. This was originally treated as a kidnapping (riveting NZ media). The example cited in NCRIME is that the same notability standards apply even if the alleged crime turns out not to be a crime - e.g. the runaway bride. In this case, one could argue it is still a crime (negligiance by city authorities, or guardians) - but such a claim is not required per NCRIME. In any case this meets GNG and does not fail on NOT (no, this is not a standard obit on the death of a person).Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proposer has not presented an overwhelming case for deletion. The onus is not on those who want to Keep to show why it should be kept; the onus is on the proposer and Delete supporters to show convincingly why it should be deleted. Akld guy (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were canvassed by the article creator, which negates pretty much anything you say. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. He was canvassed for Disappearance of David Guerrero ([3]) - not this one - in which he commented before he was canvassed for Guerrero (probably on the basis of his comment here - seeing Sitush nominated both). Akld guy was editing this page (e.g. in 20 Sep 2017) - prior to Sitush's nom.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I also want to point out that User:Sitush made 19 edits to this article immediately before nominating it for deletion. Among those edits, he entirely removed referenced material about deficiencies in the police search. It's not entirely ethical to heavily redact an article, then nominate it for deletion, and leads me to question User:Sitush's motivation. Akld guy (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with some of Sitush's edits prior to the AfD, I don't with others. Taking out references and details on the funeral that are deemed trivial by an editor (but received SIGCOV) just prior to an AfD does raise some questions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. However, there isn't much AGF being shown in the other direction, here or at the related articles I nominated. I've been around here for 10 years and still make mistakes but I can't remember the last time I was called out for incorrectly removing stuff I consider to be trivial! In fact, I have something of a reputation for being very good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff. I stand by every edit I made to that article. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sitush did not just offer an opinion; he backed it up with policies that, unfortunately, are often neglected. Many stories are shared in the media but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WP:EVENTCRIT, whichever part of it you want to look at, holds one thing on a pedestal: historical importance. Routine reporting in bursts does not demonstrate that here. Using the storm drain in the case of a dead girl as evidence of "lasting" importance is both a weak argument and incredibly distasteful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the child dies by falling into a faulty, open stormdrain and dies a horrific death 36m below, the state of such infrastructure is quite relevant as evidenced by the NZ media coverage of the stormdrains.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is certainly relevant to the case. I never questioned that. That does not address anything in my deletion rationale, unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The state of NZ infrastructure may indeed justify an article on that subject. It does not justify this article, although it could be redirected to such a thing and would merit a paragraph in it. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons Sitush gave at the top of this article are vague and could be applied to virtually any of the cases at List of people who disappeared mysteriously or List of unsolved deaths. I would like to know why Sitush has focused on this case in particular. There's something going on here that needs explanation. The onus is on the Delete people to convincingly demonstrate why the article should be deleted, while others of a similar nature are not being targeted. Akld guy (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Akld guy I am not Sitush. I suggest you either ask him or stop casting aspirations. Please note, however, Sitush has not focused on this case in particular, having recently nominated other missing person cases for deletion. He has also stated that he has noticed similar articles lacking notability but is being cautious by doing a WP:BEFORE search. Personally, I think you should be praising him for that instead of showing bad faith.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're miles off regarding me, Akld. Back off. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a violoation of the not news principal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on going sporadic national media coverage in NZ with recent mentions on national radio in May and a national newspaper in August. Meets notability for an event and is likely to be referenced when there are incidents around infrastructure maintenance/safety into the future in NZ. NealeFamily (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the article says next to nothing about the infrastructure issues and instead focusses mostly on repeating hyperbolic speculation that, alas, is common in such cases (and did contain a lot of trivial guff that was more suited to a tribute webpage). If you work for the police, you'll know just how many nutjobs make accusatory etc reports/sightings after disappearances and, yes, the police unfortunately have to check them out. It is the norm. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that the article as it stands is inadequate coverage of the topic and needs a substantial tidy up - the primary reason for retaining it is that this particular case is notable within a NZ context and accept that it is probably not notable on a global scale. NealeFamily (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NealeFamily WP does not have such a concept as "not notable on a global scale". If it's notable in New Zealand, then it's notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Schwede66 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the discussion was pointing at that idea, hence my comment. NealeFamily (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of NOTNEWS. I won't go into details about the death but such article may lead creation of any recent death of just anyone after the investigation has been reported more than two times. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article would hardly open the case for every minor case being entered into Wiki. It is the New Zealand context of the event and its impact on the way local authorities manage infrastructure that gives it notability. I agree that the article does not at this stage bring this out with any clarity and needs a lot of tidying up. I can understand the views expressed by those wishing to delete it based on its current content, but would oppose doing so to allow time to remedy its inadequacies. NealeFamily (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretty much saying what I said above. To paraphrase, it is the wrong content under the wrong title. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - you want to delete the article. It is the way in which the content has been presented that needs a tidy up. Also, the title is an accurate description of the event so I am not suggesting it be changed. NealeFamily (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The unusual factor was that there was a period of 7 days in which nobody knew what had happened. The area was searched, but there was a deficiency in the police search that resulted in her or her remains being missed. All details of this deficiency in the police search were removed by User:Sitush in a series of edits just before he nominated the article for AfD. Because the area was (apparently) searched thoroughly, the presumption was that the child had been abducted, a highly unusual event in New Zealand.
This changed the status of the case from missing person to kidnapping. Sitush misrepresented the situation as "wild speculation re: possible abductors". In fact, the police officially changed the status. See List of people who disappeared mysteriously for a list of cases that are in many instances far less notable than this one. Akld guy (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2017 (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.