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 Keep per WP:SNOW. This closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the obvious consensus shown by other users. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Just because the media fixated upon it in 2005 does not make her notable per guidelines. This story is even much less notable now than it was when the first AFD was proposed. Belicia (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, Natalee's notability seems assured for years. 120 sources is a pretty good sign of coverage in multiple third-party sources.Kww (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I agree with Kww, she's notable. Wall to wall coverage. Come on, we had an Afd debate in December, and it was ended early, conclusion was "incredibly notable", nothing has changed. This is a waste of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty good article about a sad subject. Sentimental wish to delete, but the extremely recent and extremely decisive survived AfD seems a pretty thorough measurement of consensus. Like Wehwalt I want to know: What has changed since December? BusterD (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalee Holloway (2nd nomination). I'm sad to see somebody waste the community's time with yet another nomination of this article, especially so soon after the previous nom. - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Aw gee, not this again. As it turns out, this non-notable story is being covered again tonight on Dateline NBC. Mandsford (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you combine the three debates, the vote against deletion is something like sixty to six. Is there any way to salt this?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use consensus, not voting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This does seem to be a somewhat good faith nom. However, notability doesn't expire, and this person is clearly notable, with 100-plus sources about her. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Natalee Holloway disappearance per WP:BLP1E and a number of contributors to the previous AfD. "... information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Avb 02:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment During the last AFD, it was extensively discussed that this isn't the forum to decide on a move, that the article talk page (where it has been discussed), is a better place. And of course I'm aware that we don't use voting, I'm just frustrated. There is no way w should have had three AfDs on this, and I wish there was some way to prevent a fourth.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the relevant policies. "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Thank you. Avb 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I have of course read them. That was the discussion on the second AfD. Was I inaccurate?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to assume that a prior discussion on a prior AfD trumps the AfD policy. Once again, after an AfD discussion and assessment by the closing admin, "the page is (...) renamed/moved to another title (...) or deleted per the deletion policy." Avb 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is a common misapplication of WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E never says a word about the title of an article, and Natalee Holloway is already in full compliance with anything it actually does say. - auburnpilot talk 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to the extent that it's a common application. You may want to consider the meaning of "information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself". Is this an article on Natalee Holloway, or an article on her disappearance? Avb 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this an article on Natalee Holloway, or an article on her disappearance? " I assume you've read the article and can answer that for yourself. If not, then I assure you it is about the case itself. That does not, however, mean the article should be moved. To quote myself from a previous discussion, "There are dozens of articles all over Wikipedia, where the article resides at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). For examples of what I'm talking about, see Category:Murdered American children." Of course I've read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as well, but there is certainly a precedent for articles to remain at a title such as Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question; it should be clear that I want the article moved because I believe it is about the case, not about the person. I am glad you agree that this is an article about the NH case and repeat: "... information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself".

Precedents are not a very useful concept when it comes to WP consensus. Arguments might carry over from one consensus to another; the consensus itself does not. In view of your arguments here (which I do not find convincing at all, especially after rereading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) you may want to consider the number of articles that follow my interpretation vs. the number that follow yours.

FWIW, I don't think the issue is all that important. What irritates me are ex cathedra statements to the effect that I am misapplicating policy. I am not; my interpretation is a mainstream one, your interpretation is less common (although it certainly has its supporters). Why don't you simply state that your interpretation of the policy differs from mine? Avb 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on two things: (1) It isn't all that important and (2) our interpretation of the wording on WP:BLP1E seems to differ greatly. Maybe a discussion on the talk page of WP:BLP1E to clarify the wording is in order. - auburnpilot talk 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As irrelevant and non-notable as this "dead white girl" (as one of my friends put it) should be, the media's fixation with her has made her notable. Wikipedia just collects the information; we don't pass judgment on it. (Though if ever there were a reason to start...) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article is notable and the news has continued to fixate on her for years. In addition, with two previous AfDs closed with a Keep, this AfD certainly should qualify as a speedy keep, especially considering the absolute lack of input for deletion. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article has received extensive news coverage. I'm watching a special on her as I type this.. and it's not 2005.. so I guess it is still receiving news coverage. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 03:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 23 February 2008 (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.