Deletion of Disappearance of Sarah MacDiarmid

Comment: or '''Delete''' to Sensing Murder No ''enduring historical significance'' or ''widespread impact'' per . What we appear to have here is that a person disappeared, it was reported in various media (understandably, considering ) and was mentionned again yeas later on a TV program. As such, it fails ,  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:RECENT||WP:EVENT||WP:EFFECT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I guess I'm a little confused about exactly how the subject is notable. The article discusses one event as it relates to one person. So let's look at each of those points. Considered biographically, the article gives biographical information, therefore the fact that the article is named Disappearance of Sarah MacDiarmid rather than Sarah MacDiarmid doesn't make BLP1E any less relevant. Of course, it is questionable whether the person is still alive, so I suggest we consider this more in terms of  rather than BLP1E; which is basically the same but without the apparent requirement that the subject be living (B'''''L'''''P1E). Therefore, we must ask, was the victim notable for anything other than her disappearance? The answer is, apparently, No. We could, of course, refer to  and, indeed, that policy seems to suggest this article should stay, but the question arises: Is mere repeated coverage the same as ''persistent'' coverage? We're not talking about an ongoing story, with a new chapter popping up every year or two (as with Azaria Chamberlain). Also, how is merely disappearing having ''a large role within a well-documented historic event''? Unfortuantely, people disappear all the time, but Wikipedia is not Unsolved Mysteries. Which raises the issues of . Was the event ''a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance?'' No. Did the event ''have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or societal group''? I presume not. Regarding , I doubt that guideline alone would support inclusion else a single well-written news story would be sufficient to get an article on WP. As for  and , to satisfy those two guidleines, I'd expect that each new or unique mention in the media would offer an update of some form; to do otherwise means each mention is simply repeating old news and, as I mentioned earlier, repetition is not the same as persistence. Nonetheless, I agree that this article is one of those borderline cases and I must emphasise that I'm not determined to see it deleted. However, I just don't believe the subject deserves its own article. Hence, I've slightly changed my vote above to emphasise my preference for merging
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:VICTIM||WP:EVENT||WP:INDEPTH||WP:DIVERSE||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: While I was previously unfamiliar with this case myself, the sources Jenks24 has provided certainly establish it as notable.  http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=E48A3686E1E7B0333AD1AFB274F4009C?page=1&sy=age&kw=Sarah+MacDiarmid&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=entire&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=0&clsPage=1&docID=AGE100710IC8US3DB5KP This news article, for instance (just one of many), suggests that it's still very much in the national consciousness twenty years after the fact, and seems to speak to the criteria in  about duration of coverage, as well as implying that it did "have a significant impact over a wide region"&mdash;it seems to have been covered in national papers, and I'd consider all of Australia a sufficiently wide region to qualify
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Also, the appeal to  and  is utterly irrelevant.  These guidelines deal explicitly with the question of whether a ''person'' only known for one event should have his or her own article separate from the article about the event.  They have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether an ''event'' should have its own article&mdash;that's what  is for.  If this were an article about Sarah MacDiarmid herself rather than about her disappearance, then those guidelines would be entirely germane, but arguing that an ''event'' shouldn't have an article because the ''people involved in that event'' aren't known for anything else is trying to apply  and  backwards, and makes no sense at all
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:EVENT)