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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway[edit]

• Delete While this event was sad, but the fact is, it is a one missing persons case. One. Uno. Thousands and thousands of people go missing each year, and just because this one person goes missing they instantly get a long page about them. What about all of the others? Where is their page? It can't just be me who thinks that the only reason this page exists is because person was a white teenage suburbanite. I would bet anything that if this happened in another country, or if this person was another race. I don't see this as even one bit fair. Where are the other missing people's wiki sites? It's simply not just, and I find it intresting that this person was seen leaving, not being dragged out kicking and screaming, but leaving under her own will. And so I ask once again, why have this page here, why have this pie in all of the other missing person's face here? Delete this, and prevent Wikipedia from becoming a sensationalist media network Change1211 00:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an on going story nation wide in the US Betacommand 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! Why in the world would this be tagged for deletion? It's a very notable ongoing news story. Deleting this would be like deleting the Elizabeth Smart article. Mr. Lefty 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It seems like it would be more appropriate to have a page specifically about her disappearance, not about her, per se. She would not be considered notable if it were not for the media circus surrounding her disappearance. But I don't think it matters much either way, and this page will be in a state of flux for a while to come. -DejahThoris 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As the article says: "The disappearance caused concern in the United States and Aruba along with a media sensation in both countries" . This was (and still is) a huge story, and has resulted in diplomatic friction and economic boycotts between the two countries. --BillC 00:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I definitely understand what User:Change1211 is saying, I believe that this particular article is notable. IrishGuy 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Maybe there shouldn't be so much attention paid to her disappearance, but the same can be said about Laci Peterson. --Nlu (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. Notable, not for the girl that is missing, but the boycott of a foreign nation based on lies, insunuations, and no facts, and the ongoing media saga. Move to Natalee Holloway disappearance case. It has 1.6 million hits at google, not just something that passes by and is not notable. KimvdLinde 01:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've gone into great detail on the article's talk page in response to User:Change1211. Suffice it here to say I find the article is definitely notable. Kasreyn 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Patrick 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article helps people find out information about the case and also could be considered an example for the american media's obsession with missing white girls --Chris 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BillC. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I do fail to see how this is a recent news article, as it was almost a year ago. And also, yes, there was another case like this one. I am also not saying that either page earned the attention they recieved. And shouldn't there be a page about the sensationalist American media, not stated in an unrelated article. And about the Elizabeth Smart case. First, she was abducted, she didn't leave willingly with three males out of a bar. And second, it's very uncommon for these stories to have a happy ending, so I'm in favor of keeping the Elizabeth Smart page. Bottom line, if it wasn't for all of the media attention, which is the main aspect of this page, then the page wouldn't even exist. Change1211 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely irrelevant whether the notability of this article is due to media attention or not. The fact is that it is notable. IrishGuy 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep for the obvious reasons. I think Wikipedians are smart enough to streamline the article to its essential facts once the media reports of the ongoing investigation die down. And there will always be some essential facts meriting an article of some kind. --Dystopos 02:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Then show me the other missing person page's? How come there are very few of them, and they all seem to be the same kind of person, a young, white female. Change1211 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we can have a NPOV, well-cited encylopedic article that is not sensational, not driven by ratings, and thoroughly documents the changing winds of this case, we will be ahead of Greta and the other talkers who obsess over this daily but never have anything new to say. Thatcher131 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Very notable, plus what seems to be a lobbying effort. If this topic isn't notable enough for inclusion, we'd have to take down more than half of the pages at Wikipedia. - RPIRED 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. Seriously. --Slgrandson 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Once again, I still fail to see how this is notable compared to the other missing persons cases. And it is hardly a current event, it happened last year, so why is there still a current event tag on the page? Change1211 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Grandmasterka 03:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I thoroughly loathe the way this was covered (or really, the fact that it was covered at all, at the expense of valid news coverage and social progress in general.) The article doesn't offer nearly enough criticism of the coverage, in my opinion. Unfortunately though, this is notable. Perhaps rename to something like Natalie Holloway disappearance case? Grandmasterka 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I'm in the same boat as Grandmasterka. It is indeed sad that this person went missing (it appears to be because of her actions that she did go missing) but I fail to see why this case is so special when compared to all of the other people who have gone missing. Change1211 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sigh. Think of it this way. Is Holloway a subject that a significant enough number of people could seek information about? Given the amount of media attention that you so clearly loathe (and I also loathe), the answer is undoubtedly YES. None of your arguments and lobbying for deletion are holding muster as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, which is why this deletion debate is so one-sided. - RPIRED 04:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because she probably shouldn't be notable doesn't mean she isn't. Good rule of thumb: if somebody is at the center of a media frenzy, they probably are notable. And moving the article is just silly and accomplishes nothing. — GT 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:By that logic, where's the page for George Bush choking on a pretzel. It was a media circus. Change1211 04:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't following the same logic. George Bush already has an article so an item like that would simply be added to it. It wouldn't require a separate article. There is only one article about the Natalee Holloway disappearance so anything regarding that (Natalee herself, media attention, etc.) all belongs in the article you are so ardently trying to remove. IrishGuy 04:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, there are a whole series of articles, such as Joran van der Sloot, Carlos’n Charlie’s Arashi Beach and Gerold Dompig. KimvdLinde 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I do also fail to see how a series of articles should exist. Why not combine the related pages into one, it would...at the very least would "help people seeking information find it easier" Change1211 04:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree on that! KimvdLinde 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. These could all be combined into one overall article. IrishGuy 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another thing about this article, what exactly is with the Law and Order/CSI episode lists, they seem rather unrelated. And it seems that chances are two of them were already made by the time this happened, if they did shoot an entire season before airing them. Change1211 05:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is used to decide whether a particular topic merits an article, not to hash out the content of that article. Please comment about the content of the article at Talk:Natalee Holloway, or edit it yourself. --Dystopos 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable now because of the enormous media scrum -- GWO

• Keep, obviously. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I agree that Holloway shouldn't be a big-deal media story, but for whatever reason, she is. The place to note the disparity is, as the page does, in a criticism-of-media-coverage section, rather than by deleting article pages here. -- FRCP11 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I argued to delete Kristi Yamaoka on the basis that her story came and went, and pretty much dropped off the radar after her 15 minutes. This one, on the other hand, won't go away, so it remains notable. Fan1967 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:POINT. Gamaliel 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a huge media story, and is notable enough. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should be covered on Wikipedia for the media firestorm it brewed up. Very notable event. --Eyaw Nayr 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Osomec 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Natalee Holloway disappearance case. The only reason she is notable, unfortunetly, is because of the media circus surrounding the case. Also, although this is not really part of this AfD, if we're talking about merging other articles (like Joran van der Sloot, although that seems to be leaning keep too) here it would make more sense to have the article be about the case, not the person. BryanG 22:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of people are famous for only one thing, but we don't insist on renaming articles such as "William Shakespare authorship of drama" or "Milli Vanilli lip-synching controversy". Wikipedia:Naming conventions prefers overwhelmingly the simple, most link-likely title. --Dystopos 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was I thinking? WP:BIO clearly states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" are notable. Switching to keep. BryanG 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep, not sure why this is up for AfD at all --Deville (Talk) 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel that this needs to be kept up since it was a media blitz story of the last year. Although there are thousands of missing people happening each year, there are the few cases the media picks up and runs with. It may not be very worthy of space but remember this has become apart of history, as stupid as it may sound. I have to agree with Mr. Lefty on this one and say that if we delete this one, then why not delete Elizabeth Smart or Jimmy Hoffa or Thomas A. Mutch. Keep this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citybug (talk • contribs)
• Keep if I'm here in a very distant cold country, and back in the day I said "who the heck is Natalee Holloway, and why are Americans raising that much noise about her?" in the exact same context as I'd say that about, say, Elian Gonzales, it probably indicates that there was enough media noise and we, the unknowing foreigners, just may be interested to know what the heck that noise was all about. The article answers: oh, some missing person. Fascinating. Keep-worthy for the media reaction alone. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gamaliel. youngamerican (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Snowball clause might be applicable here. youngamerican (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Snowball clause, being nothing more than an essay, is never applicable in policy or process. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It, like many of our other wikineologisms, has however been used as explanation of the logic behind a speedy keep---if not a justification, per se---and as a reason for withdrawal of AfDs by the nominator. youngamerican (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should never be used as an explanation of logic behind a speedy keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Should speedy keeps that have been closed as such be re-opened, then? How about articles that have been deleted with people using WP:BALLS as a reason, should they be restored? I know these are absurd things to suggest, but I'm not convinced that an absolute rejection of essays and/or summerized common arguements in AfDs is the best way to go. Regardless of our differing takes on wikilogisms, however, is there anything in this AfD that requires it to not be a speedy keep? youngamerican (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wouldn't protest, actually. We should certainly have some speedy keep criteria, and we in fact do have some. But when people quote divisive essays like WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:SNOW in an attempt to sway an AfD, it's no good, and no AfD should be closed with those in mind. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree. I think WP:SNOW in particular is being misused of late. · rodii · 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The media attention provides a level of notability above many other missing people's cases. Plus this has made her something of a symbol for missing people, too. Wikipedia does "breaking news"-based articles all the time. Later, when and if she's located, I could see this being rolled into another article. But right now there's simply too much notability involving this case for it not to deserve an article. 23skidoo 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is notable in the same way that JonBenét Ramsey is. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. AnonEMouse 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article keeps coming up for deletion voting. It should be decided once and for all. There's no reason to keep revisiting the delete vote on this article continually all the time. See log-file for the amount of times this thing has been deleted. [1] CaribDigita 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That log shows ten minutes of odd activity in deletion and recreation that I won't pretend to understand, but it certainly appears that the current discussion is the first actual AfD debate. Fan1967 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep ridiculous amounts of coverage, for better or for worse. Time to close this one, somebody! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is notable and should be kept. Aristoi 14:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the very first commenter's position. IMMEDIATE Delete.

• Keep, subject is notable --Mhking 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, No reason to delete - Proposer's motion is sketchy at best Goldenboy 13:08, 7 May 2006 (BST)
• Keep, with one thing in mind. I believe that this story, due to the amount of media exposure it recieved and continues to recieve deserves its own page. However, all of the sub-pages on this topic should be merged into it, with the distant possible exception of the Van Der Sloot family page, although I would be in favor of merging that too. There is no reason to have individual pages for Natalee's parents, or the police officials in the case. The only notoriety for those people comes from this one incidident, and the disappearance of one woman is not historically important enough to warrant a tree of articles. Perhaps this article should be renamed "Dissapearance of Natalee Holloway", and all other articles merged. We also need to consider the possibility that this story will become an unsolved mystery forever, and not an emerging news article.
• Keep - by leaps and bounds. We're not in the business of second guessing what much of the world thinks is important and noteworthy. --Rob 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there a real reason this VfD is lasting so long considering the overwhelming support against deletion? WP:SNOW indeed. - RPIRED 01:18, 8 May 2006 (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.