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 delete. Consensus strongly agrees that the subject-matter is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Schuett 1990 Rape Case (formerly Jennifer Schuett)[edit]

Jennifer Schuett 1990 Rape Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject is only notable for having been the victim of a crime. WP:BLP1E states that such articles should be deleted unless the coverage of the event or individual is significant, an example of significance being John Hinckley, Jr.. Kevin (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This is a major news story all over CNN, Fox News, and other major news networks. The location of a suspect with near 20 year old DNA evidence is rare and the Jennifer's Schuett's cooperation in this case sets it apart and is likely to become a legal precedence in DNA admission to courts. The full article on CNN speaks how the FBI is already saying they have "never seen a case like this before" and that, if convicted, Bradford's (the suspected rapist) trial will likely set up future case law. Jennifer Schuett is also highly unusual as victims of crimes of this kind so brutally attacked hardly ever survive. She also relearned to speak and set the example of a victim pursuing her attacker as she worked with law enforcement over the past twenty years. Although a stub now, it has a enourmous potential and should not simply be deleted. This article is clearly notable and, as the investgiation and trial unfold in this case, there will no doubt be a large amount of material to add in and expand. -OberRanks (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I should also add that there are over 500,000 internet hits on Yahoo alone for Jennifer Schuett and her story. I would stay now this should be a "Speedy Keep". -OberRanks (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we could move the whole thing to Jennifer Schuett 1990 Rape Case or something like that. Then the article would be about the incident and not about simply the victim of the attack. -OberRanks (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I moved the article to Jennifer Schuett 1990 Rape Case which makes this AfD no longer valid since the article is now about the rape case, and how it made national headlines and may change DNA case law, rather than the victim herself. If we want to start up another AfD on this new article, I guess thats okay, but there ar eplenty of articles on Wikipedia dealing with brutual and vicious crimes that have attracted national attention. The original concerns about this article WERE VALID. I am just a little sorry people din't just explain this on talk pages, discuss a possible move, rather than rushing straight to an AfD. But, I guess that's what Wikipedia is all about and no hard feelings. -OberRanks (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't make the AfD invalid, so the tag needs to stay on the article until this is closed. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that but the article now has a new name and is about a new topic. I would suggest re-starting the AfD focusing on the issue of the new article. The original issue, that we should not have a biography type article on Jennifer Schuett, was totally valid which is the why the article has been moved and rewritten to focus on the crime. Are there further obejctions with the content of the new article? If so, we can discuss it. -OberRanks (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone who likes an article can't stop the AFD by renaming it, thereby throwing away the effort many editors put into reading the article and posting their comments. If the renamed article is terrific, then those who !voted to delete can strike their !vote and change it to keep. Otherwise page move/renaming would be a tactic used to keep crappy articles from being deleted when the AFD was going against the article's creator or fan. Edison (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming of the article was in response to very valid comments that we should not have an article on a single person but, in accordence with Wikipedia policy, should focus on the overall event of the crime which then covers info on Schuett, her attacker, and the overall crime. Therefore, I moved the article in accordence with WP:BOLD. Also, as far as "throwing away the efforts of many editors", I am the only one who has ever significantly edited the article and no one but me has ever posted comments to the talk page. I've also said several times I would be fine with an AfD and even asked admins to fix the page name to make it clear that the article has been moved but was still under consideration for deletion. As far as this being a "crappy article", WP:CIV pretty much covers that. Thanks for your comments, though. -OberRanks (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. I was talking about throwing away the AFD responses, not the article or its talk page. It hard enough to get people to participate in AFD without a fan of the article being able to nullify their comments by a page move. I also specifically did not say this article was crappy. Some article that people want to keep at AFD actually are, though, and their fans will go to any length to keep them. This one is a not-at-all-crappy article, just one of questionable notability. Edison (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought that up on Admin Noticeboard for exactly the reason that I was not sure what an article move would do for the AfD and if the AfD would then have to be started over again or simply continue under the new page name. After it was explained that the AfD would continue on one page, and the page name updated, I had no problem with the AfD. See below comments also, I would fine for a delete at this stage. We can probably close this up and delete the article. -OberRanks (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a minor story at best; these stories are becoming very common as DNA compilation technology becomes mature. This is a local news story with the usual cable channel overcoverage, and easily meets WP:NOTNEWS. As for the "over 500,000 hits"...don't go by that number. In truth if you take out the spammers, AP aggregators and false positives, Google only gives 373 total hits. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We seem to be overlooking that the FBI is quoted as saying there has never been a case like this before in the history of child abduction and that it is likely to change DNA case law. Aslo this is hardly a "local story with cable news overage". The victim has been on sveral major news networks over the past ten years. Again, this should probably be moved to an article about the crime itself and not the victim. -OberRanks (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was WP:BLP1E - now WP:NOTNEWS. Black Kite 11:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would argue that using the policy you cited is not valid here since the policy states Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The case here clearly goes beyond a single event. The Schuett rape case is likely to redefine DNA case law and also this is a story that has been going on for over ten years and has branched out into several other areas such as victims rights and child notification laws. There is enough here to keep and expand this article much like other articles in existence about violent crimes. An example is the Murder of Junko Furuta which was a single rape-attack-murder that led to its own article on Wikipedia. One could say that the Schuett rape case has even more coverage than the Furuta murder. -OberRanks (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. There's really nothing remarkable here, and nothing to indicate it's more than yet another flash-in-the-pan story. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Except that, as stated above: The Schuett rape case is likely to redefine DNA case law and also this is a story that has been going on for over ten years and has branched out into several other areas such as victims rights and child notification laws. Also there has been more coverage of this case than other crime articles on Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing new about identifying a suspect based on DNA on the victim's clothing. It's great she survived and that a suspect was arrested, but so far it fails WP:NOTNEWS. It is not clear what it is that so amazed the FBI person; No one ever survived an attack before? No survivor ever wanted the perpetrator caught? DNA was never used before in a sex crime? See Gary Dotson for a case that actually was historic use of DNA rape evidence in 1988 to clear a man falsely convicted. It was used in 1986 to find an English rapist murderer The claims that it "is likely to redefine DNA case law" are pure crystall ball gazing. The sad thing is that law enforcement had the suspect's DNA since 1996 and did not compare it to the evidence DNA of a horrible cold case until recently. Edison (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deletion at this point is fine since not many people wish to keep this for some good points. I've archived the page in my userspace when/if this ever really does become a ground breaking case of DNA case law so we can then bring it back. The deletion of this article should, however, open the door to several more on Wikipedia. We have articles on single murders, attacks, beatings, etc of completely non-notable people all over this encyclopedia. Half of those should really be deleted since they were passing news and no have little to no significant interest now by the public. -OberRanks (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may be onto something there. See the essay Wikipedia:News articles. Edison (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment flagged the article for rescue since there seem to be several assertions which, if sourced, would show coverage that exceeds one event. Jclemens (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken a stab at finding specific citations for many of the assertions in the article. EastTN (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Location (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. I would also question whether this intrudes into the privacy of the victim. wrt the age of the DNA, Wearside Jack was arrested in 2005 for DNA left in 1978-1979, i.e. 26 years as opposed to 19 in this case. Martin451 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She voluntarily speaks about her experience and gave the news media permission to publish her name and story on all the major networks. I see no privacy violation at all. -OberRanks (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The case is notable because of what happened to the victim, the child getting her neck slit, but surviving. Dream Focus 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not news. Encyclopedic notability not established.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even with the large number of deletion votes, I think perhaps this deletion vote may be getting very one sided with alot of the calls for deletion focusing on what people think of this story's importance and not the actual coverage it has gotten. I say this not to stir up hornets, but due to the fact that I just read "Colorado balloon incident". If we compare the two articles, on one we have a rape victim who survived her throat being cut and has since become involved in victims rights circles over the past ten years. This accompanied by massive news coverage when her attacker was located using the DNA. The balloon incident is about a news story where a boy hid and was mistakenly thought to be in a balloon but was later found to not be. Again, massive news coverage. I really dont the see the difference between the two articles yet this article has a massive deletion call while the other one probably would survive a deletion vote without any problem (I do not intend to nominate it, due to WP:POINT). one could argue these are both passing news stories and should be deleted. What is the difference? I see none. -OberRanks (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, there's an article about balloon-boy? Facepalm Second, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Even if we have another article on a non-notable incident, it doesn't excuse this one. Lots of times, news flash events get articles made, then they get deleted/merged when the attention dies down because they weren't really that notable. It's going to happen a lot when you have 24-hour news channels, Twitter, etc. reporting on every little thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's certainly true. There is also talk of the balloon story becoming a major felony case with likely news coverage for several months to come. -OberRanks (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In this case there is enough coverage to justify the article. (though, admittedly, nowhere near as much as Ballon-boy,which now has reached the stage where Columbia Journalism Review has published an article about the news coverage itself. Given the victim has made multiple public appearances about it, it's clear that no invasion of her rights is involved. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (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.