This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
I think Disappearance of Susan Powell probably should be the first article listed, WP:RECENTISM concerns aside (the article has been in existence since 2009, anyway), because of the primacy of the topic in search results and general interest in society. However, it is not that big of a deal for me (it is not as if the article is hard to find or difficult). Moogwrench (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not that big a deal to me either, but thought I'd express my preference by reverting the change. I certainly felt strongly in regards to the requested move discussion. IMHO, subjects which are not biographies don't belong at the top of any biographical disambiguation page, rather they should appear in the "See also" section. I can't back that with policy or guideline. Another reason for my preference is that one day they'll find this poor girl, and the story will go away. Eventually this article will end up deleted, IMHO. But news being news, as long as there's a pretty white girl missing, they'll run it. That's why we have WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION. Lots of people go missing every year, and it's tragic. IMHO, the only reason this story has stuck around is that the subject takes a nice photograph. IMHO, if the subject were African American or an illegal alien, they wouldn't give it this much coverage. In the case of a missing person, sustained news coverage might tend to a have positive effect for finding the person, so that's my primary concern today. I hope people find her alive someday soon. BusterD (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that my view of WP:RECENTISM uses the 100 years test. One hundred years from now, will somebody need to look up the subject? News reader, probably not. Missing woman, certainly not, unless something major not already on the page occurs. Miss America 1981, somebody will want to look up. That's my rationale for listing first. BusterD (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who is to say what will happen, right? There might be a big breakthrough in the case that leads to a big trial, etc. But I think the main reason that this story has stuck around is because of the very odd circumstances surrounding this woman's "disappearance" (similar to disappearance and later murder of Laci Peterson) -- the uncooperative husband, the sudden disappearance from one day to a next, the odd trip around the same time as the disappearance, the child-porn loving father-in-law(who also had naked pics of the daughter-in-law, which is being treated more like a murder case for the purpose of investigation. I guess we will just wait and see. Moogwrench (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should remind that CRYSTAL is about what we shouldn't have on the encyclopedia, not what we should include. However consensus is how we decide these things. Since there are literally thousands of missing people in the US every year and we only have articles on a few missing young white women, I have to wonder why. If you click through the females in the category Category:2000s missing person cases, you'll see my point. Also see Missing white woman syndrome. Why Wikipedia perpetuates the syndrome is beyond my understanding. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
