Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sightings of Madeleine McCann

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 No consensus. There is substantial and well-argued support for a merge and redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but TerriersFan makes a good point to counter that, and I suggest that discussions continue on the relevant talk pages. What this AfD has decided is that there is insufficient consensus to delete the article. As usual with no consensus outcomes, there is no prejudice against subsequent renomination at AfD. NAC—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sightings of Madeleine McCann

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an encyclopedic topic on its own. ScienceApe (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might actually be a WP:NOTNEWS violation. The sightings are worth a summary paragraph in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but this level of detailed coverage has no lasting value I can see; each purported sighting made headlines when it happened but no impact after that except in the aggregate. postdlf (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with postdlf - worth a mention in the main article, but this much detail is completely unnecessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Supposed sightings of a crime victime are not independently notable. MLA (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll simply quote what the article's creator Terriersfan wrote on the talk page - "This article was created following discussion on the talk page of the main article in order to reduce the size of the main article. Through substantial coverage by reliable sources compliance with WP:N has been separately established but the article should be read in the context of the main page." Notability is not temporary, what was the case in 2008 is still the case today.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of notability; no one here is disputing that the article topic of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is notable. The point is that there is not an encyclopedic value to giving such detailed descriptions of each sighting because that aspect of the topic was just daily news. Why can't the sightings be trimmed and summarized down to one or two paragraphs in the main article? What understanding is gained by the reader now by going into such detail here? If a news agency were to report on this story today, which sightings would they even mention or describe in detail? postdlf (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap, 47 references? A notable topic with signficant coverage. Stickee (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily write an article with 47 references on sightings of Britney Spear's bald head, that doesn't mean I should.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or keep - The article is definitely on a notable topic per WP:GNG, as is evidenced by all the references. However, it does appear to be a split off the topic of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and substantially duplicate it, so I propose a merge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand it, the whole point of this was to reduce the size of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann article, so merging/redirecting would defeat that purpose. The information meets Wikipedia standards for notability (as a split-off from an unquestionably notable topic for reasons of length) and verifiability (see the sources in the article). —Lowellian (reply) 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it was spun off from an article that was notable, and encyclopedic, doesn't mean the spun off article is notable or encyclopedic itself. What they should have done was trimmed down that section. An article just about where she may have been seen doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It's a WP:NOTNEWS violation. ScienceApe (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a compilation of sightings going back several years. As such, it is a historical record, and thus not news, and not a NOTNEWS violation. —Lowellian (reply) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ScienceApe (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, and this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information in any way.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A list of sightings of a missing girl certainly is an indiscriminate collection of information. ScienceApe (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A list of media-covered sightings of a not-just-notable, but famous, across international boundaries, missing girl certainly is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course it is. The girl is notable, but not a list of sightings. ScienceApe (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what your definition of "indiscriminate" is ScienceApe but over on Wiktionary it says "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." That does not apply here. There is care and distinction - only those sightings as reported in reliable sources are included.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're arguing semantics. It's just a random list of sightings, we don't have an article on a list of sightings for any other topic. Should we also have a list of Elvis sightings? I'm sure we can get reliable sources on that too. Should we have a list of UFO sightings? A list of Bigfoot sightings? Should we have a list of sightings of other missing persons too? A list of sightings is not encyclopedic at all. `ScienceApe (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And the semantics came up because you're misusing the word "indiscriminate". Also, we indeed do have a list of UFO sightings. —Lowellian (reply) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lowellian. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see no reason to delete or merge this article at all. keep it.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguments that this is sourced and notable aren't enough - we already have an article for sourced and notable content at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - the fact this was too long to remain in that article should have caused it to be cut down to an appropriate length - splitting is often seen as an easy way to deal with excessive detail that it would be too much trouble to shorten. This is a cop-out not an encyclopaedia article and someone needs to summarise it in a couple of paragraphs and put it where it belongs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, cutting it down, which takes much less effort, is the real cop-out, the easy but wrong way out from developing a properly split-out article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting an article usually involves a simple copy and paste. Reducing 22 paragraphs and 47 references to an appropriate length takes time and effort, especially as it is often controversial and opposed through reversion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And splitting an article means having to do the same summarization/reduction to write a proper intro. Effort involved is a bad argument to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 22:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my argument was against using WP:SPLIT as a reason not to delete something. My delete rationale is that we already have an article for this subject at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this article in any case be called Supposed sightings of Madeleine McCann - it's actually misleading to suggest she has been sighted after her disappearance.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we're heading down that road it should be Alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because some of the people reporting the possible sightings are not necessarily alleging that the girl they saw was McCann, but simply that they saw a girl who looked like McCann. Maybe Reported sightings of girls people thought were Madeleine McCann or girls people thought might be Madeleine McCann, which just shows how ridiculous this whole thing is.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I dont buy that argument Pontificalibus. Most of the people says they saw McCann herself and not another girl However investigations later on has shown most of them to be wrong but all the observations of the girl were all made in good faith I pressume.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of missing persons, the word "sightings" is understood per common sense to mean alleged sightings. Adding a descriptor word (such as "supposed" or "alleged"), which should already be implied, to the article title is unnecessary. —Lowellian (reply) 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - by virtue of the references this page easily passes WP:GNG. It doesn't duplicate content in the main page but supplements it; the material in the main page is the minimum necessary to provide context. This was split off, by consensus after discussion, to relieve the pressure on the main page which was getting too large. Of course it could be merged back, but there is no good reason, and all that would happen is that we would have to agree another class of content to spin off. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2011 (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.