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 speedy keep. This is a Snow keep as there are many sources online. The article may need some expansion but as noted, the nomination reason as "unremarkable unsolved disappearance" is not valid. It also falls under notability for criminal acts which makes it notable. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Eloise Worledge (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)

Unremarkable unsoved disappearance. TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of any significant ongoing coverage of this case.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. the disappearance of Eloise Worledge is one of the most famous missing person cases in Australian history, certainly in Melbourne's history. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. At present there is a single reference. Simply not good enough.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When homicide cold-case detectives began reinvestigating the case in 2001, they were surprised to discover the picture of Eloise was instantly recognisable, more than 25 years after her disappearance". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep The case is covered throughout several decades worth of sources by doing a simple Google search. Sure, the article needs some expansion and/or copyediting, yet it does not at all seem worthy of deletion.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (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.