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. Maybe reconsider after a few months to see whether the case continues to draw coverage. Sandstein 08:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant

[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS. children unfortunately disappear all the time and it gets media coverage when there are suspicious circumstances, but this is essentially routine news. got a spike in coverage in March 2011 but not much else. [1] LibStar (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. I spent quite a bit of effort on this article, but I see no evidence of lasting reliable source coverage of this subject. If someone can provide such evidence, I might be persuaded to change my opinion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri, I appreciate your honesty on this one, too often I see editors want to WP:OWN articles that are up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Im going to say Keep because it is a very rare case. Two children being missing for almost 10 year without anyone knowing about it. We cant disregard the subjects media reports from the time when it was first discovered. Ofcourse these things comes and goes but with pending prosecutions of the adoptive parents and very possible other new developments in the case I cant see anything justifying a deletion. Its an ongoing missing persons case which recieved an high amount of publicity quite recently (march) that is enough for me.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A very unusual case that my crystal ball (yeah, I know) tells me will get more coverage. It has received some later coverage in June which stated that "investigators believe [it] could be a double homicide, but remains a welfare fraud case."[2] But if we do delete it and there is further coverage and analysis we can always write it again. Fences&Windows 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Milk Carton. Lots of people disappear all the time, lots of disappearances remain unsolved. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rare case is notable Warburton1368 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of people who disappeared mysteriously - This topic sounds like a tragic situation, but it does not appear to be sufficiently encyclopedic. See WP:NOTNEWS. All sources are local Colorado news outlets, except for one article by MSNBC, which is not especially in-depth. At some time in the future this case may reach a higher level of notability - including mention in several nationwide news sources - and then an article would be justified. --Noleander (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if wikipedia was NOTNEWS then articles like Paris Hilton or the one of the closing of the News of the World newspaper would not exist here on Wikipedia so I dont buy that argument of NOTNEWS and will never do that. Wikipedia is infact built on news stories so it is a contradiction in itself. Also you say that no major news outlets has reported on this story but these [3], [4] tells me different.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to merge this topic into some list article, such as List of people who disappeared mysteriously, Unexplained disappearances, or Unsolved murders. Of those three, List of people who disappeared mysteriously looks most appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way would be to give the article more time. Instead of merging or deleting. No clear consensus anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the Bryant children's case is already described in List of people who disappeared mysteriously here. So, the merger has already been done to some degree. Editors who are interested in this topic may want to copy more material from this article into List of people who disappeared mysteriously. --Noleander (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we should copy the material from this article to that article then why just not keep this article. Makes no sense. Anyway I dont see a deletion consensus here nor keep so No consensus is the most likely outcome here and the article will be kept. For future re-nominations.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2011 (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.