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. And Davidgoodheart is cautioned about canvassing with regards to future AfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Tammy Rothganger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence that this is no more than just a very tragic but typical disappearance (about 2,300 Americans are reported missing every day). References are to routine databases and typical news reports; no indication of this case being any more notable. See also, WP:MURDEROF. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable, however news coverage may make crimes notable per WP:NCRIME. In this case coverage mainly seems to be around the 2016 capital murder charge stemming from this case (e.g. [1][2]) and is mainly local. So local non-continuing coverage. Amenable to changing my !vote if additional sources found.Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, is sourced enough to be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No there really doesn't seem to be. Not as far as I can see.★Trekker (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a database for missing persons. Nothing from the coverage available convinces me this case has any lasting significance or sustainability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per source 8. I agree with Davidgoodheart overall that article is sourced, level on sources are sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This editor was canvassed by the article's creator here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources suggesting national-level notability. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2018 (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.