Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teteringen Girl

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teteringen Girl

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not meeting GNG, the only sources found are used in the article. One brief mention here [1]. Missing persons case gone cold it seems. Sourcing found in Interpol, then straight to the various websites and podcasts that deal with such things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Women, and Netherlands. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! This article is available in the Dutch wiki, and is not an article for deletion there - that's one of the reasons I created an English one, in addition to her being one of the 22 women listed in Identify Me (which does have its own page.) Is there anything I would need to do to make this page not recommended for deletion? If not, that's okay - but I did want to say my piece about why I made the article and why I thought it was notable enough. Thanks! Cincosechzehn (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Dutch language sources that mention it at length? Newspapers, magazines, books? Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News article: https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/3410804/meisje-van-teteringen-na-30-jaar-opnieuw-aandacht-voor-onopgeloste-moord

Book published in Dutch: https://www.bibliotheek.nl/catalogus/titel.430036604.html/het-meisje-van-teteringen-en-andere-naamloos-begraven-personen/

Newspaper article in Dutch: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=KBPERS01:003091021:mpeg21:a00033

Let me know if you need more. Thanks for the follow up! Cincosechzehn (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google translate to understand the articles, but the first source listed above is a 2021 report of an announcement by the mayor of Breda about the installation of a sign with a QR code for the public to use to learn more about the unsolved crime, with quotes from the former journalist Theo Jongedijk about his doubts related to the adequacy of the previous investigation (also noting he wrote a book the previous year and has advocated to the mayor to request further investigation from the Public Prosecution Service) and quotes from the mayor. The second link is a listing for the book by Jongedijk. The third link is a brief 1990 news article with a headline that translates to "Walkers find murdered woman." I am considering these sources in the context of policy such as WP:NOTADVOCACY as well as the WP:NCRIME, WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E guidelines, without access to the book or secondary coverage about the book, but my sense is regardless of how in-depth the book may be, the other sources are brief coverage, not the multiple sources needed to help support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beccaynr! This nomination is an obvious BEFORE failure. There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion, redirecting, or merger. See three LISTS of sources below. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, lists of WP:GHITS are generally not considered strong support for notability, and my spotcheck of lists you added indicates top Google results are corpse photos, and at least some results are not about the case, e.g. [2], [3], or are brief announcements, e.g. [4], including about the journalist who wrote the book [5], [6], [7]. But I have reviewed specific sources produced in this discussion, and I would be happy to review further sources that could help develop this article, and/or an article about the journalist's book.

From my view, determining whether and when a topic should have a standalone article involves more than than WP:GNG, and includes consideration of WP:NOT policy, as discussed in the notability guideline. The WP:NCRIME section of the event guideline indicates sources should show an WP:EFFECT, e.g. a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance; and per WP:GEOSCOPE, not just national or international coverage but also a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group. As to the WP:INDEPTH section, there is a book written by a former journalist, but so far, multiple in-depth sources do not appear to have been identified in this discussion. So WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy seem to apply to what mostly appears to be a collection of brief news reports, churnalism, and government sources, without much context beyond Operation Identify Me, which is why a redirect and adding the best sources to that article seems appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Becca, actually only the first of the three source lists that I provided was from Google News and it includes independent sources. The other two are from the Algemeen Dagblad, NL's second largest daily newspaper in readership, and Reformatisch Dagblad, one of the smallest national newspapers in readership. Since I used the Dutch term for the victim, these lists will include for the most part independent Dutch sources. Similar searches can be conducted for different lnaguages. More impact is in the Netherlands but the interest is international and raised and tied into debates on "honor killings" (a terrible concept but this is where our article is) within Muslim and North African societies in Europe. Finally, I will cast the insinuation that I engaged in Google Tests far from me. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not find the three lists helpful for finding sources to support a standalone article according to relevant policies and guidelines; I spotchecked all three lists without finding what I think would be further support, and I think it would be helpful to identify specific sources here that could help support a standalone article. I am open to changing my !vote, have tried to find sources, and I am willing to continue to review specific sources if they are identified here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable murder case in the Netherlands. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Identify Me - available sources do not appear to support WP:GNG or WP:NCRIME notability guidelines at this time, and available coverage tends to report on her in the context of Operation Identify Me, e.g. the government sources in the article, Corriere del Ticino [8], and a solid paragraph of coverage in this Dutch source cited several times in the article. At the Operation Identify Me article, this 2023 source is cited, mentioning Operation Identify Me with a limited summary of the operation's activities; this appears to be a questionable source based on its about page. The limited coverage, both in the number of independent and reliable sources, as well as the depth of information available about this subject, seem to support directing readers to the larger police operation article, where the best sources can be added to her entry. Beccaynr (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the huge amount of sources,list 1 list 2 list 3 delete is not an option. Redirect and merge (I am big on these!) are irrelevant as this is a proper spinoff. Remains keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable case and coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found about the murder case. It's a notable crime. Noneate (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Keep this article, other editors are advocating a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easily Keep: meets WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified above, which seem ample to meet the GNG. I do not read WP:NEVENTS as restricting the scope of notability even further beyond the GNG; rather, it provides some rough rules of thumb to guide in evaluation. In particular, contrary to some arguments above, it must be noted that a conditional statement such as Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable does not imply the inverse. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2023 (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.