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 snow keep because there is no delete opinions. Withdraw, basically. Beerest355 Talk 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson[edit]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson (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)

This was AfDed but was kept because I think it was too early to tell if it was going to have a lasting effect. Now two months later it is clear this went totally nowhere so it was a generic case of Not News. Beerest355 Talk 15:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With several dozen references, it is, in my opinion, clear that this article meets WP:GNG, as well as WP:EVENT--specifically, the news stories that cover this case cover it in detail. Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News stories covering it in detail is not the only reason to keep. You also need to prove the event had long-standing notability. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The previous AFD ended on 19 August 2013 as KEEP, because it meets all notability requirements, as the overwhelming majority of people participating did say. 26 people said it should be kept, and yet two months later, we have the same AFD over again. Dream Focus 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Voting keep because it was kept before is not a good idea. My evidence is that this case has no long standing notability. Lots of the arguments in the first one for keeping were crystal ball in that they were predicting that it would stay notable. It did not have a lasting effect so it fails the guidelines. Beerest355 Talk 00:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I think that the original nomination, by User:Taylor Trescott, was done too soon. There was no real way to tell if it would have long standing notability as the nomination was close to the event, so really both keep and deletion arguments were a bit crystal balling and prediction. Now 2 months have passed. This did not stay in the news. No long standing coverage and no evidence it will have an effect. Beerest355 Talk 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The story was and is notable per WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. It received in-depth national coverage for some weeks and continues to receive coverage.[1] It may not have a lasting impact on society, but last I checked that wasn't a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dwpaul (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - deemed notable once and not long ago. In-depth coverage which was persistent.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I voted Delete in the first one, but that was premature. It persisted for a good while and got fairly deep. No rule saying an event must be perpetually covered to retain notability. The vast majority of historical events are no longer in the news, simply because they're not new. It would be hard to argue the United States presidential election, 1904 or the Siege of Tsingtao still have a lasting effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep basically per InedibleHulk vertabrim. I nominated this article originally but it's pretty clear it passes WP:EVENT as there is persistent coverage. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:13, 17 October 2013 (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.