Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ann Crecente

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 userfy (already done) and delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Ann Crecente

Jennifer Ann Crecente (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Murders of this type are lamentably common. Even the existence of memorial funds/scholarships does not confer notability Robert A.West (Talk) 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert A. West appears to have had his feathers ruffled. Because I deigned to question his continued removal of what I considered to be relevant information regarding the Daniel Brandt article he has decided to attempt to delete an article of mine.

Fact: This article is of consequence because it has since become the basis for a charitable organization with 501(c)(3) status that was created in order to inform young women about potential abusive relationships.

Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas State Legislature will be creating a law in January '07 in her name and memory to award diplomas posthumously to students that died during their Senior year of High School.

Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas Psychological Foundation has created a memorial grant in perpetuity of $5000 / year for Graduate work related to studying violence against women.

Robert A. West's feathers aside, it is absurd that Wikipedia articles be so capriciously and callously deleted. Drew30319 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Although a memorial fund has been created and a scholarship will be created in 2007, neither of these are primary points in the article. This murder has been covered by all major networks in addition to AP and UPI. Drew30319 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very sad and regrettable that this happened. My condolences to the families. Delete. --humblefool® 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And I find it rather sad that Drew30319 seems to think that political campaign style "facts" are a good idea. -Amarkov ^babble 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Deletion of articles should not be interpreted as callous or somehow denigrating, and framing the issue as having the subject be "victimized" again is artificial and unnecessary. hateless 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete What at Tradgedy, bu Wikipedia isn't a Mermorial. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I had someone I knew well die in a situation like this but I realize it's not notable. Putting this in AfD seems to me neither capricious nor callous. For future reference, it may also be a good idea not to start your defense with a personal attack, no matter how subtle. --Leftmostcat 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now but bring some content back later: Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the scholarships do not confer notability. A Texas state law caused by this case, however, would make the event notable in my opinion. However, that's a future event and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So until the Texas state legislature does pass such a law, Ms. Crecente's memory, while worthy of honor, is unencyclopedic and doesn't belong here. But "Jennifer's law" would. So don't despair, you don't completely lose the argument. Alba 14:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but copy to user space first and rewrite as Jennifer's law. Addhoc 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reminder Deleted articles can be undeleted at any time if circumstances change, so even if we failed to userfy, the content would not need to be redone if a notable law is passed. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the constructive comment. Addhoc 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now. I agree with Robert A.West, this should probably userfied (the work done on sourcing along justifies it), and then brought back if the law in her name is actually passed. I commend Drew30319's efforts on this article, but I do suggest that he does not resort to personal attacks in debates in the future. They definitely do not help. --Nehwyn 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is Addhoc who deserves credit for the userfication idea. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy - In my mind, this individual comes very close to satisfying the WP:Bio criterion that specifies:

"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

Clearly this is not an assassination, but the event was newsworthy and the memorial fund that has developed as a result gives Crecente a certain amount of renown. Based on the path this debate is taking, it is fairly clear the article space won't stay, but by userfying the body we can give the author a chance to find enough news sources to satisfy notability by the aforementioned guideline. →Bobby← 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep'. I think the doctrine that "murder victims are not notable" needs to be scrapped. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a subject for a policy page, but ask yourself this: worldwide, a person is murdered every minute. We aren't going to add a half-million memorial articles every year, so how do we decide? Are the relatives of Wikipedians more worthy of mention than others? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no doctrine that murder victims are not notable. The doctrine is that being a murder victim does not confer notability. That isn't a bad thing. Very few things automatically confer notability upon someone. -Amarkov ^babble 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've done a search for both "userfy" as well as "userfication" and haven't found any explanation of what this means. Could somebody please (with a minimum of abbreviations) explain to me what it is that I'm supposed to do in order to retain the work done on this article? The state senator that is sponsoring "Jennifer's Bill" was re-elected and we have every expectation that the bill will pass. At that point I'd like to be able to re-use the appropriate content.

Also, although it does not matter with respect to the apparent direction that the article is headed, it is not just a memorial fund and scholarship. There is an actual charity that has been created. The organization is incorporated and has received 501(c)(3) status by the IRS.

Again, this isn't stated to change any minds, but for clarification.

I feel comfortable with waiting until the legislation passes to be able to add the relevant info. Thanks for the constructive information. Drew30319 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done it for you, here. For future reference, just copy the content to a subpage of your user page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish Jennifer Ann's Group well: I can think of several friends (two now deceased) who desperately needed that sort of advice. Objectively, however, it is not notable, and cannot confer notability on Jennifer. Simply getting 501(c)3 approval is not notable. Any competent attorney can shepherd any reasonable proposal through the process. The routine publication of a press release or interview announcing the organization is termed "trivial" press coverage, and doesn't really count. I've served on the boards of a few organizations with more press coverage than this new org -- none of which I believe are notable enough to merit their own articles. There is a strong recommendation (WP:AUTO) not to write articles about yourself, your family members or organizations in which one is involved. The idea is that, if the person or organization is really notable, someone else will write an article in due time, and that you cannot really be objective about it. Any strongly-notable organization has critics. Even Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama have them. If an organization has not yet attracted critics, it may be too early for an article on that subject. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The deceased individual does not appear to meet WP:BIO standards, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. GRBerry 16:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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.