Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sarah MacDiarmid
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
— User:LordVetinari, 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ONEEVENT||WP:VICTIM||WP:EVENT||WP:INDEPTH||WP:DIVERSE||WP:PERSISTENCE (Wikipedia:Notability)