Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Hornbeck

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Despite the large majority of keep arguments, it needs to be established that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Very few of the keep arguments come from a policy or guideline standpoint and do not address the concerns of the nominator (lack of notability. Encyclopedic notability is important, as this is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet. Furthermore, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and the existence of an article X is not a reason for keeping an article. However, even looking past those arguments, there is still not a consensus to do anything here. --Coredesat 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hornbeck

[edit]
Shawn Hornbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Does not seem notable, maybe belongs in wikinews if it is a newspiece. Navou banter 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the key figure in a major news story that has garnered daily national coverage since it began. It's hardly "just another abduction," as some of you have (somewhat coldly) stated.

Keep This is an extremely relevant case that will intrigue many in years to come. The rarity and unusualness of a 4 1/2 year kidnapping are undeniable. As a psychologist, I have a special scholarly interest in Shawn Hornbeck, clearly this boy may have suffered from an extraordinary case of Stockholm Syndrome similar to that of Elizabeth Smart who was held captive for 9 months. Also his kidnapper Michael Devlin, should have a linked but still separate page. Also I'm sure as information comes out about the tactics Devlin used to terrorize Shawn, and what he endured during his captivity, there will be much more to add to his page. Also for all everyone saying this boy is just out for 15 minutes of fame, 4 1/2 years of captivity with a man who probably did god knows what to him is never something someone would do for attention. I think that's a horrible suggestion.

Keep - Was held captive for four years. If you want an AfD, try the other kid who was kept for two weeks or something like that. --Joffeloff 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not my goal to AFD. I would rather be an inclusionist. :P But I digress, the article reads like a news piece, and if we include that, then we must include every other kidnapping/missing that resulted in "significant" results. There are too many cases. Side comment: If it appears that consensus will not be achieved, I have been known to withdraw nominations. Navou banter 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'- Elizabeth Smart has an article, and she was also kidnapped and later found after years. If she gets an article, then presumably this kid gets one too. Maybe not in this form, but as an article about the Devlin fellow 74.133.144.195 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page." Navou banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would venture to ask, is the news a reliable source, even non-trivial? Navou banter 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment - Collectively (i.e., multiple, internationally recognized news sources, such as AP and Reuters), yes. Ward3001 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Does not seem notable"?!?!? How can a normal person think that this case is not notable. A child goes missing for over four years, in a situation where most kids are murdered, and he is miraculously found alive!?! What are you thinking?!?! And the statement that "it reads like a news piece" is no excuse for deletion. Revise it, add to it, fix it up, but KEEP THIS ARTICLE!! (I have no vested interest in this article or subject matter.) Ward3001 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that because of the rare nature of the discovery following such a significant amount of time after the kidnapping, this article should be kept. The article could be greatly revised and expanded, but it should be included. Nicastpj 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In agreement with others. Since everything I was thinking seems to be already said, I feel the article should stay. Fanficgurl 12:55 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. No indication of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a news service (that's Wikinews, a totally separate project) or a record of crime victims. News notability is not the same as encyclopedic notability. Encyclopedias are not news record archives. If the foundation created in the victim's name could be shown to have developed into a substantive, long-term organization, I would probably support a move to an article about that foundation. But of time of writing, the foundation website is down, and its unclear to me how significant this organization is. If there is evidence that this case had a broader substantive cultural or legal impact, I'll reconsider my !vote. Personally, I believe that the widespread conflation of Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia with its use as a news and magazine article archive is the most underestimated/underconsidered urgent problem facing the project (and its sister project, Wikinews). Bwithh 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment wikipedia isn't entirely for encyclopedic notability, think of all the actresses and actors on here. Shawn should be on here for the same reasons as Holloway and Smart, and then some. There is some "encyclopedic" notability in here however, it will be interesting to learn why his captivity went on for as long as it did. This is not so much a news article as it is an investigation into an extremely unusual kidnapping.

Keep and Enhance-Trust me, it will be very easy to enhance this story in the coming days. But this is a notable article and stary, anyone who can't see that is blind. Bing kidnapped for 4 plus years and being found alive is not the norm in kidnapping cases and notable in and of itself. I know this from persoanl experience sadly. Kerusso 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request of participants I would request, "please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article". Also would you disclose if you have a vested interest in the subject of the article, thanks, Navou banter 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am in concurrence with Bwithh above. I am beginning to see the need for differentiating between Wikipedia and Wikinews. There's not much more to this boy (and I'm not downplaying the tragedy) than the fact that he was kidnapped and found years later. The brevity of the article demonstrates this. I do believe information like this should be available via the internet, and here, but the proper place is Wikinews until this story can demonstrate long-term and lasting notability. Recommend anyone concerned open a Wikinews article on the event as one does not exist now. - Rollo44 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading Elizabeth Smart kidnapping and found it a fascinating article. If this one can somehow grow in similar length and quality, it would be a good article. But that's a big IF. - Rollo44 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards crime victims, generally I look to see if either the case has created a change in law, had a substantial cultural influence, or there has been a significant book, film, play etc. about the case or the case has attracted sustained, substantial national media attention. The Elizabeth Smart case seems to pass these criteria. The Hornbeck case, I don't think so at the moment. Bwithh 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, due to decisions made about the licensing of Wikinews content, a direct transwiki isn't possible (I think this is a major flaw in Wikinews design, though I know there are reasons why it was done in this way). Certainly someone can open a new article in Wikinews as Rollo44 suggests. Bwithh 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Michael J. Devlin. I am fine with either option but this shouldn't be deleted. WP:BIO's last bullet point is Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not so clearcut as you think. The line you quote from WP:BIO is specifically from a section which is talking about the likelihood of finding reliable sources on a subject, and is not directly addressing a subject's notability. WP:BIO is a guideline which does suggest any subject receiving multiple independent media coverage may be considered worthy of an article. However it is not a policy. Policy WP:NOT suggests that articles on news events should be of "historical significance" - a position which is backed up by Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Wikipedia_is_not_a_news_service: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic." Bwithh 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Bwithh, you state exactly why this article should stay: "In the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on the topic." Elizabeth Smart deserves her own article because she made the news for a really long time and because her case was notable. Ownby and Hornbeck show no signs of leaving the front of CNN's website any time soon, especially because details (such as what happened during the intervening years) may not be known for days - or months. As soon as the kidnapper's trial gets underway, all three articles will become much larger and more encyclopedic. Right now, yes, it reads like a news story, but eventually this article will be at least as useful as the one on the Lindbergh baby. And Navou, contrary to what you've said above, very few kidnapping cases achieve "significant results" like the finding of the child, and that slim likelihood decreases with time. Thor Rudebeck 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page." Navou banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if some of the !keep voters would come up with some sources and references to back up their exclamations and claims Bwithh 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What type of references are you expecting Bwithh? The rescue itself is notable. Missing children, abducted by strangers, often do not come home. They did. Fighting for Justice 21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT may be applicable to some arguements here. Navou banter 21:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As would WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ward3001 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see into the future? How do you know what will be talked about in years?
"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page."Navou banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smart became notable because she was on the news almost every day for months, and had several books and TV movies about her made. This kid wasn't even mentioned on the news until he was found, and there is no way of knowing if anything else will happen. TJ Spyke 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--the subject should not be forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.165.20 (talk • contribs)
I have refactored the above comment. Navou banter 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page."Navou banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. He has only recently become a figure in the public's eye. As the days go on, his story and the circumstances of his abduction might be revealed in the news, but for now very little is known about what happened to him, other than that he was abducted and rescued four years later. If this does not happen, Merge with Michael J. Devlin. Maikeru 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's obviously wikinews. Of course, I fully recognize many articles exist about people who are notable only because their victimization made a temporary national splash. Anybody remember who James Jordan was? That article's AfD ended with a keep, but it really isn't contributing much to this encyclopedia. Unless Wikipedia wants to be an all-inclusive (see: WP:NOT) information source, I suspect that we'll eventually want to exclude main stream media articles as evidence of notability. If something is truly notable, then it will eventually become the subject of more scholarly work. In another case, I've had a Speedy Delete tag removed from an article by someone who thinks a video game listed as one of the "15 worst" in a web commentary is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The trend here these days, appears to be toward admitting YouTube, MySpace, and personal blogs as evidence of notability. In the case at hand, I'd rather wait for an academician to write an article or a book on the psychological effects of long-term kidnapping on its survivors (or some such) before Wikipedia sees an article on this subject. Posting one now appears gratuitous at best and exploitation at worst. Rklawton 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and enhance - Although this article reads like a news piece, the subject is notable and in the media. People are already going crazy on the kidnapper's talk page about the mere possibility of a merge. Bronzey 06:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from WP:INN I like this, perhaps it is applicable here for the "But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page." Navou banter 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO: nontrivial coverage in multiple independent sources. This guy has ongoing coverage in thousands of places in international media. How is this anything but notable? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Elizabeth Smart has an article because she made international headlines..for about..a year. She also had a tv movie, and a bunch of other stuff related to her. That's why she gets an article. Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ornby and Michael J. Devlin should all probably be merged into an article about the kidnapping, if anything. (If Shawn's get deleted, Ben's should probably go as well. At least Shawn's article has sources, and all that wikijazz). I'm not going to properly vote keep, or delete, but I strongly oppose the comparison to Elizabeth Smart, and Natalie Holloway. There's no way these guys are anyway more notable, no offense. I think the story is sad and all, and glad they're okay, but still. Just because you feel bad for them, and are interested in the story, and because they made national (not international like E.Smart's and N.Holloway's) headlines for a week doesn't make them that notable. --theblueflamingoSpeak 09:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 1. They have made international news. Google news turns up hits from the UK, at least. 2. Natalie Holloway and Elizabeth Smart are famous, but they're not the minimum for an article; they're far above it. It doesn't even take fame to be article-worthy. Notability is a very low bar. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a person who could become a crucial witness during the current investigation of the kidnapping suspect. To claim that Elizabeth Smart deserves an article and that Mr Hornbeck does not seems to be an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome in action, especially in how the original nomination is stated. MDonfield 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not wikinews, neither is it a crystal ball so arguing on possible future notability is moot. Is this person newsworthy? Sure. Is he encyclopedic? I don't belive so. I concur with Bwithh, in that that wikipedias purpose as an encyclopedia is being hurt by using it as a news outlet, tracking breaking news without regard to its historical relavance, for the simple reason that we cannot always judge historical impact until some time has passed, and putting everything that splashed on the front pages into wikipedia is counter to wikipedia's basic policies of not being a source of indiscriminate information/news outlet/memorial. When an event is current, it always appears more notable, which is why I belive the best thing to do in cases like this is let the dust settle before creating an article on someone - all living people too, so don't forget WP:BLP, most notably the "write conservatively" phrase. However, I have also found that if an article does get created, it is better to wait a short time before nominating it for afd, because, as the above debate shows, insults seem to fly becuase current events can inspire heated debate. However, an encyclopedia should be dispassionate, and more importantly, unhurried. Regards, MartinRe 11:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No Merge If Spencer Elden can get a page why not the most important boy kidnap return in 30 years, since Steven Staynor-who also has a page.
"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page."Navou banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As set forth above, this is a once-in-a-long-time event for what is now an inarguably public figure. Not since Elizabeth Smart appeared after nine months and Steven Stayner was returned after seven years in captivity has there been such an event. The text of the article will likely be substantially augmented as details of the trial become known and, based on the twenty-four hour media coverage already in place, this story is not likely to disappear from the front pages anytime soon. That more than qualifies under Wikipedia's requirements of notoriety. And yes, I do believe that, from the comments above, the proposer's nomination of this article while leaving the Elizabeth Smart article alone is an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome, albeit an unconcious one. 67.149.103.119 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the following found above: "The text of the article will likely be substantially augmented as details of the trial become known and, based on the twenty-four hour media coverage already in place, this story is not likely to disappear from the front pages anytime soon." The trial will come and more, much more, information will follow. - Rollo44 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Documents a current event, it is one of the biggest stories in the media.
  • Keep - clearly a notable person. - Richardcavell 00:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep kidnapping is a notable event, and being found alive four years later is even more notable. Don't merge with the pervert's article though.--TommyOliver 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC) — TommyOliver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, this case has been all over U.S. news. Re-assess after the news has died down, but we will still probably want to keep the article. Rhobite 02:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable individual in the public eye now, if he fades from it in time, re-nominate the article. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, current major US news. --Jaisonline 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here's two good reasons. One, it's likely to become a textbook case of stockholm syndrome ... and two, it's statistically unusual on a number of levels, in that the child survived, and that it happened so close to home. They still have articles on the Lindbergh kidnapping and that happened a long time ago, so I doubt that it's going to get old anytime soon.--TommyOliver 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The personal stuff aside, please be careful about saying someone's "likely to become a textbook case of stockholm syndrome". There really is no evidence of that and if the family so choose, there may never be full details of what happened during Hornbeck's captivity. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very fact of a kidnap victim being discovered alive 4 years later is sufficiently rare to make him notable. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the story does die down later, it can be deleted then. As it is likely to expand at the moment, deleting it would be premature.--Boffob 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on who votes. If it's a non-registered user, they give 1/2 a vote, a registered one gets one and administrators get something like five votes. 67.149.103.119 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a deletion discussion. No votes, outcome it determined by discussion. Regards, Navou banter 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merging seems to be the best thing right now, considering the amount of info we have.--CJ King 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge. MaroonFrog convinced me with "Cases like his and Elizabeth Smart's are extrememly notable and should be researched further," plus I looked him up after reading about him in the Washington Post, and there is obviously quite a bit to this story yet to come out. The article is notable now, and will much more notable in the future. Why fork an article later? Clearly, that would be the result of a merge. Adelord 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep for now and possibly renominate at a later date. Right now there are a lot of people emotionally invested in keeping this article. We do not currently know all of the facts, and I personally think when some time passes there will be a better chance at actually getting this resolved. There are other issues concerning the privacy of the children and I think it likely that we'll revisit this AFD with more issues in the future. AniMate 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any reasonable person with knowledge of the three major U.S. cable news channels would agree with absolute certainty that this case is going to be in the news for a very long time. Shawn Hornbeck specifically will be under the microscope for the fact that he apparently never tried to escape despite abundant opportunities to do so, and the supposed reasons for this will be the topic of endless discussions in countless media outlets. You may not like that, but Wikipedia does not exist to serve your personal tastes. 216.254.24.141 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Anything noteworthy suffers repeated deletions on Wikipedia, thanks to narrow-minded administrators who sincerely believe they know everything worth knowing. That's just the way of the world. (By the way, how's that three-week fundraiser going? You hit your $1.5M target yet?) 66.108.168.149 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)— 66.108.168.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Info added I added notable and newsworthy info to the article, regarding computer usage and friendship developed. Kerusso 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the participants of this AFD. I would like to thank everyone for the input. I also would like to remind everyone that while this appears to be a sensitive issue, please remain civil. I understand the differing opinions between editors, please address the edit not the editor personally. Additionally, bad faith AFD nominations require evidence, not guesswork. (Continues on second following bullet)
  • As I could not guarantee a total keep consensus, I did not withdraw the nomination in accordance with the recommendation of WP:SNOW. Very good arguments and discussion have been presented on both sides, and this is a good thing. Continue to express your arguments, but please try to remain civil. Consensus will determine the outcome of this AFD. Keep up the good work. Regards, Navou banter 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I've just had to remove a couple attacks already, an they seem to accumulate on the article talk pages of this guy and the boys he kidnapped. I just wanted to be preemptive so they didn't carry over. John Reaves 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to be sure. Navou banter 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 1ne: That may be true, but the policy at WP:AFD states "Do not make derogatory comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." John Reaves 05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job and thanks - Even though Navou and I are on opposite sides on this issue (and I will contiue to strongly oppose deletion), I want to express my appreciation to him and some, but not all, of the other editors (on both sides) for keeping the focus on the issues rather than personalities of the editors. I will accept any decision that does not seem contrary to the consensus. Thanks, Wikipedians. Ward3001 23:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An eleven year old boy is kidnapped and goes missing for four and a half years, and is presumed dead. Instead it turns out that he is still alive and happened to be within reach of his family. He probably suffered rare psychological trauma and abuse during his captivity. This stuff happens all the time, there is nothing scholarly to be learned from this case, no evidence of notability at all! okay I was being sarcastic but I mean what is the person who suggested deleting this thinking? — Lyle130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Strong Delete - Acknowledged he is in the public eye, but this is not encyclopedic. Unfortunately, kidnapping occurs all over the world, and it just so happened that this one boy landed in the public eye simply because of the length of his captor's hold on him. Please get rid of this article; this kid already has his name in the press- and if it's exposed that he's been molested or raped- it simply is not right to throw his name on some wiki article for the whole world to see. You want encyclopedic? Write about the trial of Michael Devlin, just don't exacerbate the emotional state of this boy! Consider this, in a few years after this has all blown over- people will hopefully remember the perpetrator, not the victimized, and Wikipedia should not be used as a proxy to expose victimized minors to the whole of society. The fact that were even considering posting the name of a potentially victimized minor is disgusting, and I was hoping that Wikipedia held itself to a higher standard. I agree with several posters- it's a current events news article- not an encyclopedic event. It's sad that were even considering leaving this up; imagine 15 years from now being Hornbeck (if he had been victimized) and having a Wikipedia article screaming: HEY I WAS RAPPED! Don't do this to a child...--71.194.128.49 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71.194.128.49, you've been here a month and made valuable contributions to the project. However, removing content because someone in the article, even its subject, wouldn't want to be written about is an example of the slippery slope. Wikipedia is not censored for content, and an article must stand or fall by the same standard whether its subject would want it here or not. To assert that deletion is warranted based on speculation that Hornbeck is a rape victim would set a dangerous precedent of removing content based on supposition about what the subject of the article would think of it, or about what we may later find out. This is the biography of a living person, but it is not a topic off-limits to this project. --Ssbohio 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty clearly meets the WP:N with a multitude a reliable sources. If he turn out to be a nine-days wonder with no books or TV specials on the subject (I wouldn't count on it) he can be renominated later when feelings are not running so high. Eluchil404 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the kid was gone for four years and had such an extreme amount of leeway in his daily activities makes this notable. He was allowed access to a computer, he had friends who visited, he was left alone for long hours at a time, etc. This was clearly an exceptional case from many angles. MadHacktress 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepClearly meets "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." However, it is borderline for meeting neutral point of view criteria.
  • Keep - now meets the notability criteria. Even made the cover of People, not that on it's own makes it meet it of course. --theblueflamingoSpeak 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis boy has been all over the news. People know his name and why shouldn't they be able to look him up in an encylopedia and learn more about him? Like others have said, this is an event that is occuring right now, and with time the article can grow to be as long as Elizabeth Smart's. Give it some time. Unless Shawn Hornbeck himself objects to this article, I say keep it. Funnybunny2121 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — Funnybunny2121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Shawn's story is extremely compelling and a huge news event right now. But that doesn't mean it's going to fade away either. We're still intrigued by Elizabeth Smart's story; I think it's going to be the same way with him. I also agree with the user above me who said people should be able to look up his name on Wikipedia and learn more about him. I don't think this article is hurting anyone, or the authorities' chances of convicting the man who allegedly abducted Shawn, so I think the article should stay up and be updated as the days and weeks go by. -- Wild Mountain Thyme 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shawn was the victim of an abduction that has been covered in more media sources then can be counted nationally and internationally. The nominators primary reason for deletion is lack of notability. Given the peculiarity of this case and the extensive and nontrivial coverage it has garnered and undoubtedly will garner calling this nonnotable is a joke at best — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The compelling nature of the article is driven by the fact Shawn was found. There was absolutely no interest in creating the article when Shawn was still missing. As such, the notoriety behind keeping the article seems to be driven more by emotion and less by academic interest. - Kbrooks 03:39, 18 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_Hornbeck&oldid=1249258071"