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The result was withdrawn. Thanks to Night Gyr, the page no longer attempts to be a biography. Sean William @ 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Davis[edit]

Jessie Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the subject is absolutely not notable without the fact that she has been missing since June 13, which has nothing but news sources. We have a sister project named Wikinews used to cover things like this. I have speedily deleted this article twice under CSD A7, but decided to bring it here after it was abundantly clear that people disagree with me. If you don't have sources that would allow you to write a full biography on the person, then an article should not exist on them. Sean William @ 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article itself may not contain much information, it has some relevancy to other articles if it's linked and cleaned up properly.
STRONG KEEP are you kidding me? this is a notable article! this is a perfect candidate for a wiki page. just needs some work and cleaning up! laci peterson, and all those other missing women's pages should be deleted as well then. BigCoop 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read through our Policies and guidelines and you'll find that this is not the "perfect candidate" for an article. Sean William @ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is most certainly a notable subject. The page just needs work, but it should not be removed, or in this case even be considered for removal. Like I said all it needs is some work. BigCoop 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are welcome to comment at reasonable length, please refrain from adding multiple "keep" or "delete" declarations within the same discussion.
—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-06-24 09:39Z
KEEP This is relevant to other articles related to missing persons and those that search for them, as well as law enforcement updates related to that city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP This is quite a notable article, and thus it deserves its own Wikipedia article. However I do agree that it should be more elaborated and properly cleaned up. I predict that more information will be added to the article as the forensic investigations are slowly unveiled by the Canton Police Department.Cal Poly Pomona Engineer 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is obvious that this story will grow as more is learned. If this should be deleted then so should Laci Peterson et all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Backohead (talk • contribs) — Backohead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Pointing at Laci Peterson exposes precisely why notability here is lacking. If this case captures the imagination of the public like the Peterson case did, it may be a subject worthy of inclusion here. Until that happens, you're just looking into a crystal ball. Erechtheus 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hasn't this case already captured the imagination of the public like the Peterson case did? (JosephASpadaro 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Not even a drop in the bucket. There haven't been one ten-thousandth the articles on her as there were on Laci Peterson. I'm guessing that 99% of Wikipedia editors haven't even heard about her yet. Laci Peterson was internationally known; this woman is barely known outside her very small local area. --Charlene 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You are comparing apples and oranges. Pound for pound, I am sure that this case has captured attention equal to, if not greater than, the Laci Peterson case. You have to remember that the Davis case has only been in the news for a week or so, while the Peterson case was in the news for a good year or two (as the investigation and court proceedings dragged on). Naturally, in absolute terms, a case in the news for 1-2 years will have more articles (in absolute numbers) than a case in the news for 7-8 days. Your comment that "this woman is barely known outside her very small local area" makes no sense. Has not this story been the topic of major and constant news coverage all over the nation (and not just in the Ohio locality) for the past week or so? (JosephASpadaro 16:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Again, you have highlighted why this article is not appropriate at present. If there is the volume of coverage in a year or two that there is now for Peterson, it would be appropriate to write an article on Jessie Davis. Until that coverage actually exists, an article is not appropriate. Erechtheus 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you read my above posted comment, I said that indeed the volume of coverage is (proportionally) similar to (if not greater than) the Peterson case. If you are suggesting that we wait 1 or 2 years to add this article, that is just downright silly. (JosephASpadaro 18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • There is nothing silly about it at all. It's the same principle that suggests we shouldn't have articles on films that are stuck in development hell. We have 3 news articles that obviously have the same sourcing about the same event. To compare that with the coverage of the Peterson case is absurd. There was a moment in time when the Peterson case had this level of coverage, and it wasn't notable at that point. As I said before, this case might catch fire and be the next Peterson case. If that happens, that's the time to write an article about it. That's the way it works. Erechtheus 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I've never heard of it" is not a valid reason for deletion; see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Notability is established once a subject has received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources, which she has. Evouga 10:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying we whould have a wikipedia article for every white woman who goes missing in the United States? --Ozgod 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 100,000 missing persons in the US alone. One Hundred Thousand. The total missing persons worldwide is likely close to twenty million. Do we have articles on all of them? --Charlene 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this case more notable than any other murder case? EliminatorJR Talk 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why this case is more notable is not the issue; the fact that it is more notable is the issue. The "why", I am sure, is a complex sociological question. (JosephASpadaro 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well, that's arguing by assertion. To re-word the question, how is this case more notable? EliminatorJR Talk 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment We don't know it's highly notable until it has run it's course. Such as the time when Amber Hagerman case evolved to what is now considered "Amber Alert" system instituted around the country and also helped launch the Texas EquuSearch organization. But all this was a result of the kidnapping that occurred several months after the fact. It's impossible to know what future organization will evolve from this incident.--Hourick 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So write the article if or when notability is established. We don't write articles looking into a crystal ball. Erechtheus 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability prior to death is not in issue. I don't think that anyone here is claiming that she was notable prior to her murder. (JosephASpadaro 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In that case she's undoubtedly NN, because her death doesn't make her notable. Notability has to be permanent - as I said, short term news coverage is what we have Wikinews for. Yes, this doesn't apply to all murder victims, as there may be a wider real-world notability involved in the circumstances of their death, but that doesn't apply here. EliminatorJR Talk 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consider the "notabliity is not temporary" section of WP:notability guideline. I'd submit that there is no need for any policy change in order to argue for deletion in this context. Erechtheus 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Which logic test is that? Did you unilaterally decide to add a fifth element to the four guidelines of “notability” as defined by Wikipedia? If not, when (and where) exactly was your fifth guideline approved or incorporated into the Wikipedia definition of “notability”? Furthermore, you state that: “Quite simply, if you use this logic, then every single murderer, victim, most robbers, and a lot of various irrelevant people who get written up in the newspapers would be considered notable.” First of all, it is not “logic” as you put it, but rather it is the Wikipedia definition of and policy on notability. Second of all, if every single murderer, victim, etc. fulfilled these four criteria, then – yes – they all would (by definition) be considered “notable.” Third of all, I suspect that “every single murderer, victim, etc.” would fail the first prong: “significant coverage.” One tiny little article on page 14 of the ‘‘East Podunk Gazette’’ does not constitute significant coverage. I suspect that most ordinary run-of-the-mill garden-variety criminal cases lack the element of significant coverage. Such, however, is hardly the case with the Davis murder. (JosephASpadaro 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Personally, I find it comical how you attempt to trivialize my argument by reducing murders in the news as being covered on "page 14 of the East Podunk Gazette". Pick a major crime, it will have significant coverage in major newspapers. It is quite unlikely that you do not realize this. However, this is really beside the point. Appearing in the news - be it local or national - does not necessaraly establish notabilty. It simply makes it a news story. This is the logic test that it fails: not everything that appears in the news is notable, despite this guideline. Even if the news story appears on CNN, or whatever. Resolute 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing the format of two non-notable biographies into one non-notable article about a blip on the news radar does nothing to change the character of this article/these articles in my book. I'm not certain whether or not this sort of boldness is appropriate or advised in the face of dual AfDs, but that's really a question for another forum. What counts here is that we're still dealing with a news event that will be forgotten the next time the producers of nighttime news magazines need a new tragedy to peddle. Erechtheus 02:43, 25 June 2007 (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.
More