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.
Strong Keep. This nomination is utter nonsense and completely baseless in terms of policy. Natalee Holloway is clearly notable, as established in the previous nomination of this article. The case has been the subject of world wide media coverage for the previous 2.5 years and is used time and time again as a key example of media sensationalism and has been covered by dozens of reliable sources (the article currently contains over 90). This is not a biography as asserted by the nomination, but an article about the case and continued coverage of the disappearance. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the article will note how little biographical information there is. In fact, I don't believe any biographical information is outside the introduction paragraph. - auburnpilottalk05:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Much as I would love to support deletion, there is clear evidence of notability here - how many missing persons cases lead to a boycott from a state governor? However, since the article is clearly about the disappearance and not about Natalee Holloway herself, it should be moved to the appropriate title. (Compare Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, an article on a similar case.) Terraxos (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides more than ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The nominator's WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST argument is an improper justification for deletion. This is a subject that has had enduring press coverage for over two years, as demonstrated by the article and the sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly bad faith nom about the well-known subject of a missing persons case. Though I'm not a fan of the media hyperbole surrounding the case, an article describing it in well-sourced and neutral detail is something that outweighs anything that's even close to deletion. Nate · (chatter)08:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Rightly or wrongly, it would be hard to find anyone who has gotten more press coverage than her so she's totally notable. (although I wouldn't be against a title change to Natalee Holloway Case etc.) -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In fact, this should be a speedy keep. The question of titling has been debated repeatedly on the article's talk page, and the consensus is to have the article under this title. Regardless of the Lindbergh baby and Elizabeth Smart, we do have an article for Joseph Force Crater, not the disappearance of Judge Crater. I think that editors should respect the consensus reached after considerable effort on the article's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because they've closed the murder investigation doesn't make her non-notable. As for the analogies offered by the nominator, Elizabeth Smart is alive and back home, and the last thing that poor kid needs is a biography. As for the statement that there's "no biography of Charles Lindbergh, Jr.", it's not because he was "non-notable", but because that poor kid's life ended when he was less than 2 years old. Let's not be silly. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move as above, but absolutely do not delete. The sources clearly show lasting interest. This is not just news, it is a story worthy of encyclopedic coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is certainly notable. If there's a question on the article name it should be dealt with on the talk page or if that doesn't work another form of dispute resolution. Deletion is not the answer.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Bad faith nomination by someone who's attempts to rename the article against consensus were reverted twice.Kww (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Let's forget Wikipedia policy for a minute and discuss more important matters. When I consider this case, it is apparent that there is a complete failure in the justice system, and that alone is notable! Her family received no justice in this case, period! This has been my focus in creating and editing some pages - failures in societal systems set up to supposedly protect people. To cite a discussion of the lack of pages for Elizabeth Smart or Charles Lindbergh Jr. above is pure nonsense as, someone else may be working on such pages even now. Holloway's page is in credible order, with references, etc. and even now, as I'm typing this comment, there has been another story concerning her case which I will put on her webpage. My suggestion? Create a Wikipedia category for "Failed Justice" or some such title. That's what we're seeing here and her case is notable in this respect. Unfortunately, I believe that we'll see more such cases in the future.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway She was an ordinary high school senior, and at the time of her disappearance utterly failed to satisfy WP:BIO. She was no more notable that millions of other teenagers. Her disappearance and the relentless coverage by TV news channels is a striking example and an index case of the Missing white woman syndrome. The disappearance has attracted prolonged and recurring news coverage in multiple reliable sources, apparently because her picture on the front page of a newspaper improves circulation, and her image on TV improves ratings. Edison (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly good points, but the question of a move has twice been thrashed out on the article's talk page and been turned down. Shouldn't that be respected?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This obviously should be kept per WP:SNOW. As to the issue of moving/renaming it appears that's already been discussed and the consensus was to keep it under this title. So I think this should just be closed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that this might be a good time for an admin to step in under WP:SNOW and declare this a speedy keep. While WP is not a democracy, opinion seems overwhelming.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw where a couple of editors on the article's talk page opposed a move to Disappearance of Natalie Holloway. On this AFD I see 5 calling for the move, in keeping with the fact that the disappearance has been widely written about, but the disappeared person was non-notable before she vanished. The"consensus" on the article talk page is not evident. It should be moved. Edison (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no strong opinion on what the name ends up, but I strongly believe this is the wrong forum for that decision. How many of the keep votes would have said keep + keep at this name if this was "Articles for Renaming" and not "Articles for Deletion. How can there be consensus to rename if the question asked was Keep or Delete?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't stand these articles on victims who have been picked up by the tabloids or by tabloid TV. I feel for her. I hope they catch the killer. I can't see any possible reason for a Wikipedia article. There is nothing to be gained from our having an article on this subject. Just because a number of people are interested in a subject is no kind of justification for having an encyclopedia article on the subject. It is not encyclopedic. We are an encyclopedia. We don't have a whole lot of information on the Darfur tribes that are the subject of genocide. We don't have enough information on the lawless lands in Pakistan where Taliban and Al Qaeda allies run rampant. One of these days I'm going to suggest we change the name of Wikipedia to WikiTRIVIA to better reflect the concerns of the trivia-besotted editors that apparently make up a majority around here. We either have too few grownups or two few grownups acting like grownups. Noroton (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you that Wikipedia is media-driven, with a heavy bias to creating articles out of anything that's "Breaking News" on CNN or Fox, and little about people who happen to be from a non-English speaking nation. And it pisses me off when a person who has accomplished nothing major (yet) writes off another human being as "non-notable". However, one thing that impresses me about Wikipedia is that, unlike CNN or Fox, it does invite contributions from all over the world. Is Natalee Holloway entitled to more attention than any other person who has disappeared without a trace? No, not really. Has she received more attention anyway? Unarguably, yes. Putting it in perspective, for every article like this, Wikipedia can have ten articles about people who go unnoticed on CNN or Fox. Instead of deleting one page out of principle, let's work on keeping so-called "non-notable" persons and topics in the mix. That's what that the jigsaw puzzle piece globe is all about. Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are a metric buttload (3.3 American buttloads) of reliable sources in this article. Sure, maybe the page needs a good NPOV check and copyedit, and maybe a little more biographical information about Natalie herself, but as has been said a million times in the past, AfD is not cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)02:53, 20 December 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.