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 Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. She doesn't warrant her own article right now, but should something change, there can certainly be one about her in the future. WODUP 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a classic case of a person being notable for just one event and, in accordance with policy, she should solely be covered in the event article, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Redirect. TerriersFan 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The event is currently a big news story but there is nothing to justify a separate entry on Kate McCann.88.109.182.153 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I think that depending on how events turn out she may well become quite notable for all the wrong reasons. For the moment though she is not notable other than because of her missing daughter, and assuming notability at this stage is not a good thing to do. So redirect for the moment. -- Roleplayer 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that at this point, she has become not just interesting but extremely interesting for our readers. Information on her past, present and possible future should be offered. I would have supported the AfD until yesterday (balancing pros and cons), but I believe that as off today we clearly crossed the point where Kate McCann should have her stand-alone article. We would do our readers major disservice by not allowing it in our encyclopedia. gidonb 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Kate McCann is a very significant aspect of the case, particularly given recent developments, but perhaps not notable enough to warrant an independent article at this time. The situation is still unfolding, however, so these comments may become irrelevant very quickly, in which case they should be discarded. Extraordinary Machine 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - at the point when/if either parent is charged is when a separate article may be justified. TerriersFan 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per gidonb. Robert Brockway 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - just like Extraordinary Machine and Roleplayer have said, Kate McCann is significant within the case but probably not notable enough for her own wikipedia entry yet. I don't find reasonings like gidonb's to trump site policy. As it stands Kate McCann does not deserve her own entry--Cailil ^talk 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In any case, Wikipedia is not a running news source that should be constantly updated with the latest press stories. Even people in the headlines are not notable by Wikipedia standards. If books are written about her some day, then she would become notable. MarkBul 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect, at least for the time being. Cactus Wren 04:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per WP:NOT#NEWs - no "historic notability" Corpx 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Formal suspect in what has to be the biggest missing persons search in recent history. GazMan7 09:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is now, and will be for a long time, a well-known person - a media personality. I wanted some background information about her (yesterday, before this article was created) and was simply redirected - most frustrating. The article about Madeleine's disappearence is not the place for the background information I required; this article is the place. 86.31.158.130 09:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect, her being accorded arguida status hasn't made her any more notable, in encyclopaedic terms, than she was last week. A single article on this topic, which includes this background paragraph about both parents, should be maintained until there are any major developments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's now & likely will remain extremely (in)famous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.216.36 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A few people have made the point that Wikipedia is not a running news source. I agree with this statement and policy. However, the article is not about the recent developements. Rather it refers to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (which is not up for deletion) for developments with a news value. The article provides some background on a central suspect in the case. Judging by the comments from IPs, this is background our readers are actively looking for. So everyone is invited to read the short article before making op her/his mind. gidonb 12:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Robert Murat has been an official suspect since three weeks into the investigation, and he's still just a redirect. -- Roleplayer 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was looking at Gerry McCann before, who is now in a similar situation and also a redirect. I decided against creating more background articles until the outcomes of the AfD are final. In these matters, I value the input of the WP community. gidonb 12:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now but do not delete the article's history whilst the case is still current as the subject may become notable. Timrollpickering 12:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, or, as second choice, just Redirect, in accordance with BLP and Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case. Mrs McCann is notable only for a particular event. In a year or two, we may be in a better position to judge whether or not she is really notable, or whether her notability in the summer of 2007 was just from being in the news a lot. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. ElinorD (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per zzuuzz. LaraLove♥ 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I don't see how she's notable unless she is guilty - and we definitely shouldn't be speculating as to whether she is or not: doing so is a huge breach of WP:BLP. There's nothing really worth merging in to the article that isn't already there (and anything that is separate from the topic of the disappearance is unsourced, anyway). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to disappearance article, per WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above (disclaimer: I created the redirect page). Legitimate redirect to an important case. Kate McCann doesn't deserve a separate article at the moment, but the redirect should remain, as she is (and will always be) an important part of the case. PeterSymonds 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The arguments for "Keep" seem to assume no information about her will be in Wikipedia if the article goes. All that will happen is that the article will get an automatic redirect to the article about the event, in keeping with WP:BLP1E and therefore nothing will be lost. Nobody cares about her except in relation to the case of the missing child, therefore it is unreasonable to have an article about her when all that we would ever want to know about her would be covered in the missing-child article. Anyone who types her name into the Wikipedia search box should be automatically redirected to the article on the case. Noroton 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, this is not the case. As I pointed out above, I wanted some background info about her and one would not expect such information to be in the Madeleine article; things like profession, college attended etc. In fact, all the things that are currently in the standalone article. Wikipedia users will want to know this information, so if this article is deleted from where are they going to get it? 86.31.158.130 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember that any and all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable and therefore must not original research - meaning the information you seek *must* be available elsewhere in order for it to be on Wikipedia anyway. Removing it from Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean it won't be available anywhere else, and if it does then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Also note that just because you think something is 'useful' is not a reason to keep it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While you are correct to assume that this information is available in newspaper articles, the details are scattered among many items. The advantage of this biography is that a consumer can get a more complete picture of a person at once, instead of needing to search in hundreds of articles. All this without a tabloid style, as this article only gives background, which is not necessary the case for the main article. The significance of Kate and Gerry (other than Murat or McGuinness) is that they are parents of Madeleine, central figures in the public search (with McGuiness), as well as official suspects (along with Murat). The reason to keep the article is the combination of all three factors. gidonb 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So I should read the article about Madeleine's disappearance then go elsewhere for related background information? 86.31.158.130 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is your curiosity reason enough for a Wikipedia article? I'm curious about a lot of things that Wikipedia won't let me write an article about. We have WP:BIO and WP:BLP standards to keep out material that Wikipedia consensus believes is not worthy of inclusion. If there were a compelling reason, we could override that, I suppose. What's the compelling reason? Are we going to crack this case open if only we could put details about her life on this particular page? Please look over WP:BLP. One interesting line there: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Sounds like a good idea to me. Noroton 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly, but that is not what the article is about. Otherwise than the main article, it only provides background. gidonb 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Even if found guilty she does not become sufficiently notable for her own article, rather a major player in an unusual case: crime, spin, tabloid xenophobia. -- Barliner  talk  17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kate McCann is already internationally famous as a suspect in her daughter's killing, whether or not she is guilty. --Hippo Potamus 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Other people involved in this story don't have their own pages, nor should they have until their notoriety can be established beyond the story. Having a page saying eseentially "She is the mother of the missing child and a suspect in the case" merely duplicates what is in the other article and is unneccessary. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the article gives background that is not in the main article, which deals with the disapperance case itself. I am against the creation of additional articles until this AfD is over. By the way, the existence or non-existence of similar articles is not a justification one way or another. gidonb 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is whether the additional background is needed? If it is it can easily be added to the Biography section of the main article as a new paragraph more conveniently than maintaining a separate article. TerriersFan 22:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It may become too much of side-track for the main article, but I would definately not be against it as matter of principle. I would love to see your solution. Similarly, leaving this article is not a matter of principle to me. I see it more as a matter of weighing the pros and cons. If you can give more background about the couple in the main article, that would be easy to find and would not disctract much, that would be excellent! gidonb 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking personally, and it would of course be matter that requires consensus amongst editors, I see no reason why Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Biography should not have three short sub-sections on each of Madeleiene, Kate and Gerry. I wouldn't see that looking out of place or unbalancing the article. TerriersFan 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just posted an invite on the main article talk page for interested editors to come here and join in the discussion. TerriersFan 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And then we can redirect the Kate McCann entry and the other person entries to the relevant section in the main article. Sounds like a good solution to me! gidonb 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I left an invite on the Kate McCann talk page, where people keep protesting against the redirect. gidonb 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Being a parent and a General Practitioner is absolutely non-notable. Creating a separate bio article about a parent of a child who disappeared and who is notable for nothing else violates WP:COATRACK. I agree with TerriersFan that some brief well sourced bio material about the parents could be include in the article about the disappearance. Edison 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Coatrack is an essay. It isn't violated and it cannot be violated as it is not even a guideline... gidonb 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We can always recreate the article if and when she is proven to be a famous child-killer. Until then, she isn't notable for anything not already covered in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. Hermitian 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Kate McCann is as parent not as a suspect a key player. In this role she has been mentioned throughout the main article, and there is a section about the parents. That she is mentioned in an stream of (popular) media is not enough reason for her own page. There may be suspicious circumstances, but the evidence is undisclosed and speculative, hence the media frenzy. Wvdc 07:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep formal suspect in possibly the biggest news-story of the year (over here in the UK anyway). Infact, Robert Murat or Gary McCann don't have a page (nor does Maddie herself), so why does she? Delete. Davnel03 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry MCann will have an article if this article is kept. I would not create it, as long as the destiny of this one is unclear. Murat is only a suspect, not a central figure in the search, and not a parent of the victim, so less central in the affair. As is the spokeswoman, the lawyer, etc. gidonb 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is very valid and should be kept it is the biggest news story of the year and will be remembered for a many years to come. This article should be kept or else merge it into a Kate and Jerry McCann article. --Netwhizkid 13:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per the comment above. It seems strange to me that this article would be subject to an AFD on the day she becomes an official suspect. Family members? 90.197.137.123 14:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely, it was only a redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann before the day she became a suspect, meaning there was nothing to delete. There were some changes made before that, but they were vandalism and nothing more. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs to be improved and lengthened. A person's biography shouldn't be redirected to the most awful thing in their life if there is other information. For example, Mrs. McCann article has information about her career. In the same way, George Bush article is not redirected to Iraq (though this is only an analogy and analogies always have limitations and faults). E343ll 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A pretty silly analogy. George Bush was well known before the Iraq War and occupation, but Mrs. McCann was an absolutely non-notable mother and general practitioner. An article about Mrs. McCann or her career before her daughter's disappearance would never have survived AFD. An article about a Texas Governor and United States President would have survived AFD. Edison 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. The Bush analogy doesn't hold, since Bush is notable by himself, being the president of the USA and all. Kate McCann is, currently, only notable because of her missing daughter and only slightly more so since she has been named arguida. If she is guilty, than Gerry could not possibly be uninvolved, and the most logical place for information on the both of them would still be the 'Disappearance' page. Should she not be guilty, than she is not notable enough to have her own page.SQB 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per GazMan7. Further, if guilty, notable for obvious reasons. If not guilty, notable for publicity in raising the profile of missing children cases...come to think of it, notable for that even if she is guilty... Ringbark 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge everything that she as person is notable is the disappearance of her child. And even this article is about a crime under investigation which the world sees everyday in the high numbers (on several places of this planet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.176.250 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would say merge to an article called Gerry and Kate McCann. Both have become public figures in the UK, far more than most parents of missing/murdered children, and are now notable enough for own page (especially since the other day). Even if Maddie is found safe and well tomorow they are still notable for the massive media campaign and being declared suspects. --UpDown 07:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect... for now.--Steven X 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I was one of the editors that reverted it back to a redirect. I do not think that is directly related to the news story or the subject is particularly noteable. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hence I informed you about this AfD. gidonb 15:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The article contains virtually nothing of relevance, other than some sketchy background on her very routine private life, and a redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann where the nub of her fame resides. There's no article for her husband Gerry whose fame ranks equally in all respects. Even if he's not quite such a draw for the UK tabloid press. Subsequent events may change things. But then they always will. -- Tigary 14:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no article on Gerry yet, because this one is being AfD'd. It was created when Kate was a suspect and Gerry was not. The Kate McCann article refrains from including tabloid-style content. It is a decent starter. gidonb 15:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - When the investigation is complete there may be sufficient notability for an article but untill then there is no need for this --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: two articles on the subject are enough for now. Rothorpe 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect as she has been only notable for that event.--JForget 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? Ian Huntley is only notable for one event, he's still notable. Many people are notable for only one event.--UpDown 07:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She will only become notable if she is found guilty of a crime, as Huntley was. Rothorpe 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, so you have to be found guilty to be notable? I don't believe that for a moment. There is sufficient media attention, for a long period of time, that a joint article on her & Gerry is warranted. --UpDown 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect In this case, the article on the event is sufficient, despite the world-wide publicity. There's really nothing otherwise to write about. DGG (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to write about. The main article could be cut down, and a Gerry and Kate McCann article could focus on the parents media campaign, as well as them being declared suspects. --UpDown 07:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more; the fact that the McCanns are presently arguidos is simply one dimension of a bigger picture. They haven't been charged with anything yet, let alone that nothing has been proved. Their involvement is most certainly important but it should remain in the main article where it can be read in context. TerriersFan 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, the massive media attention they have had since May, coupled with recent developments, means a joint article is the best way forward, in my opinion.--UpDown 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When it gets to the stage that readers/researchers/journalists are looking for information on a person, that is the time to have some material on a person. The consensus in the discussion so far appears to be that we should have that material - the main disagreement seems to involve where that material should be placed. If the material were to be in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article then it would be limited to the most relevant information to the disappearance with a minimal prospect for growth. If it were a stand alone article then more extensive information could be provided which could be of potential value to a fuller understanding of the case, and the public/media response to the case. Comparisons are already being made between Kate McCann's lack of emotion and the lack of emotion shown by Lindy Chamberlain - a comparison of their background would be a legitimate research target. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Kate is more notable then many other articles on wikipedia so why has this article even been nominated? Seems strange--Zingostar 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP If John Mark Karr was a suspect of killing Jon Benet Ramsey and he was worhty of a wikipedia article because his own notarity was greater in the public view such as Kate McCann.Bnguyen 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.27.57 (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To paraphrase nom, "a classic case" of a Merge proposal being brought unnecessarily to AfD. WP:BLP1E has been cited as requiring a merge due to notability solely for one event. Let's read WP:BLP1E#Articles about living people notable only for one event carefully: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. - OK does not necessarily imply. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Generally avoid -- if they are of low profile. Surely, we can all agree that Mrs. McCann is no longer low-profile. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Note the use of unlikely. A carefully sourced bio on her seems appropriate. On the other hand, I'm not saying this is a licence to libel. I agree that we must careful to consider: Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talk • contribs) 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, even i'm not 100% sure. The truth is, that if the mother has a bio page the child should have too! Elmao 07:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, the main should just be at Madeleine McCann, the rest is superflous. --UpDown 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right Elmao 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge relevant material. At present, this is clearly a marginal biography. Anything of note that needs to be said about this women relates to her daughter's case. Go to 'Early life' on the disappearance page and change to 'Early life and family'. Add three or four biographical sentences for each parent. Editors have obviously made a decision to work on it as a collective subject (technically, Madeleine McCann herself does not have a page of her own) rather than through a series of bios. If the mother is charged and convicted one day, she may warrant a separate entry; but that's a decision for the future. Marskell 09:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge as above.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge as above. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and redirect and merge anything appropriate. Not independently notable. Sarah 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with Gazman7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chump Manbear (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 September 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.