Talk:Disappearance of Heather Elvis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deletion proposal[edit]

Propose this page concerns an event that is not notable, and should be deleted. This is a routine news event: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)

Perhaps we should ignore a deletion nomination posted in the wrong place on the wrong page by an IP with maybe a dozen edits over the past year and a half who doesn't know how to wikilink and then forgets to sign ... But, just for the record's sake, I'll take up the argument as the creator and primary contributor to the article:
"this page concerns an event that is not notable, and should be deleted. This is a routine news event"
I would say that the IP misunderstands WP:ROUTINE, to which they did not link. While there are many missing-persons cases every year in the U.S. and other countries, they are not by definition routine events. They are not explicitly mentioned as routine events (in fact, nothing that the police investigate is) there, and I don't think they are "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out".

I would also commend the IP's attention to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The Elvis disappearance has been the subject of regular reporting in the newspapers and TV stations of South Carolina, all of which meet our definition of reliable sources in the five years since it occurred, due to five people getting charged with criminal offenses in relation to it or the investigation, charges that resulted in three trials where two defendants have gotten long prison sentences—all without really resolving the driving question of what happened to Heather Elvis that night such that she hasn't been seen since then. The trials, and the case, have drawn attention over this time from news organizations outside South Carolina, news organizations at the national level that similarly meet our standards for reliability: The New York Post, NBC News and People. Some of that coverage has also been picked up overseas.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Not really applicable, as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is an inclusion policy that addresses itself primarily to inclusion of information within articles, not which articles we include. That's notability, addressed in my counterargument above.
  • "Wikipedia is not a newspaper"
Again, not really applicable at the article-inclusion level save for 2., which is basically a restatement of ROUTINE, discussed above. It seems as if the IP is unsure of themselves and is trying to reach for any argument that to them sounds vaguely relevant.
  • "Too much detail."
An editorial issue to be discussed, sometimes at considerable length, on the article talk page, but not a reason to delete an article.
  • "A missing white woman is not a notable event in itself."
It is true that WP:SENSATIONAL says "Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability". This does not make that problem a deletion criterion (indeed, that should be obvious on its face). We may certainly deplore this phenomenon, but we have long since decided that it is not Wikipedia's role to do something about it by refusing to run articles on cases of missing white women that the media goes overboard in reporting on (which should properly be described as "missing pretty blonde young well-educated from-affluent-family not-overly-sexually-active-or-substance-abusing white woman syndrome", cf. the Mollie Tibbetts case from this past summer), nor do I really think we'd accomplish anything positive in combatting it by doing so. So if the media's coverage has pushed such a case over the notability threshold, we create an article, and sometimes it results in things like Disappearance of Natalee Holloway becoming front-page FAs.

The proper way for Wikipedians to deal with this issue, really, would be to improve the MWWS article to FA status and get it on the front page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - this should be taken up again for deletion. She's news in part of SC, and that's about it - just another (sad to say) kidnapping/murder with no repercussions on society et al. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:D0F0:571B:2B23:BC18 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true about many of our articles about missing persons. I tend to see the fact that the Moorers got convicted of kidnapping someone who has not been seen since the night she disappeared as making this case notable—bodyless murder convictions are one thing, rare enough but not unknown, but a bodyless kidnapping? Does anyone know any other cases?

Aside from which, this article has never been formally nominated for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence from the article mean?[edit]

  • The Moorers posted the $20,000 bond set for those two charges, but later waived the bond on the kidnapping charges in favor of the murder charges,[35] on which they were initially held without bond*? 2600:1006:B05B:81E3:E0FD:D6FA:7966:21EC (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What it meant was that I didn't look closely enough at what the sources said. I have corrected it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_Heather_Elvis&oldid=1212345759"