Talk:Murder of Sharon Lee Gallegos

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arizona Low‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Biography

	Biography portal This article 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 article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

just a heads up

@Winkelvi: @Daniel Case: @Gourami Watcher: @Rich Farmbrough: @BabbaQ: Apart from that Little Miss Nobody was a Somebody. I'm mightily pissed off at people elsewhere online that claim places like Wikipedia and Websleuths shouldn't call her Little Miss as there is an infinitesimal small chance she might not have seen herself as a girl.

(sarcastic) Yeah, lots of little boys have colored hair and painted fingernails and toenails (sarcastic)

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder?

@InedibleHulk: Regarding this edit, I agree with you. I have no proof but I am suspicious that this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. I think The Huffington Post called it murder because Wikipedia was calling it murder. - Location (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but why Wikipedia was calling it murder, only @Paul Benjamin Austin: knows, and he's apparently on a break. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: @Location: I'm on a break mostly but I'll just say that i was going by the online sleuth forums which referred to LMN as a murder victim. It was all i knew. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, there you are. Thanks for not bringing that enraged pageant mom from the sticks theory here. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I've done anything wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. From here on, just remember to follow the sources and not the hunches. On Wikipedia, anyway. A little wild speculation/thinking outside the box can be useful in solving mysteries. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with someone creating an article and mentioning it elsewhere, but I find it a bit suspicious that The Line Up/The Huffington Post article came out shortly after the development of this article... particularly since there has been virtually no coverage of the disappearance over the past fifty years. One concern that I have is that the The Line Up/The Huffington Post may have used the Wikipedia article for their write-up [e.g. note the prominence of the "Somewhere, someone..." quote in both articles] and their write-up is now being used to support the WP:PERSISTENCE clause for determining notability. - Location (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, note that Wikipedia's version of the "Somewhere, someone..." quote (i.e. "Somewhere, someone is watching to learn what happened to a little girl left on the desert.") cites this source which actually states: "...but somewhere someone is going to be watching the paper to learn what happened to a little girl left in the desert.". - Location (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Busted. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is "on the desert". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the pastor thinks the people possibly involved in LMN's death will be reading the newspaper rather than watching the television news? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a different time. Didn't even have VCRs or national cable, let alone YouTube. A five-minute spot over the air lasted exactly five minutes (and reached only those in surrounding areas, if they had their TV on), while a five-paragraph spot in the paper can last for centuries. It's why we only have newspaper sources in the article today. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. someone once pointed out to me that so many old newspapers being stored on microfilm isn't actually a bad thing as microfilm can last for hundreds of years, and computer hard drives... can't. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to copy a backup drive, though. Back before Gutenberg's day, copying itself could last virtually forever. How many nameless scribes had to die cold, blind and alone on remote rocks just so we can still sort of remember people like Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Lois? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "searching for rocks" another way of saying they were searching for gold or precious stones? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Streambeds are generally a good place to look for those finer things, but they're also a good place for the functional kind. The way it's worded, I'd lean toward plain rocks, but can't be sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Congress lost its gold prosperity in the mid-'30s. Of course, what's considered "worth the trouble" by mining companies can be much different from family-sized standards. An ounce of 1960 gold only works out to $287 in 2015 money (a fifth of modern gold), but that's not exactly peanuts (an ounce of today's peanuts costs just one 1960 penny; one 1960 penny can cost $22 today). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post didn't even ask me, if it's true that they half-inched it from Wikipedia. Sheree Beasley and Karmein Chan may have been murdered in Melbourne but they both have Wikipedia articles because they are famous throughout Australia (although Karmein's should be at Murder of... as she's only famous for being kidnapped and killed, not as a person in her right). The fact that most of the articles about them come from the same media ownership is just because Rupert Murdoch owns most of our major newspapers. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]