Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph E. Duncan III

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 20:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph E. Duncan III

Delete. Wikipedia is not America's Most Wanted. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:23, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Author's Comment: I wrote the article of course yet I felt that it was important to provide examples/studies or biographies of certain, "model" cases for the purpose of education and learning to identify sex offender profiles. Duncan is rapidly becomming a sex offender icon. His blog has opened a new dimension to understanding the mind of a repeat, criminal sex offender. Please consider leaving this page intact, or improving it. jaimenote
  • At best, this belongs at Wikinews. Aside from the blog aspect of this story, this guy is really just a run-of-the-mill sex offender, AFAICT. (It sucks that sex offenders are common enough for there to be "run-of-the-mill" ones, but I digress.) If and when this guy's case and his blog have a serious impact on the study of sex offenders, he might deserve an article in an encyclopedia, but right now, he's not particularly notable, and this content is much more appropriate for a news site. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 07:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Firstly clearly needs cleanup to comply with WP:MOS. Secondly seems verifiable, so no legal problems. Thirdly, the author appears to be the same author of the site at http://www.jaimesite.homestead.com/josepheduncaniii.html which must be frowned upon. The only what links there is a see also in sexual abuse (not v good), but week keap on the basis of verifiability, but remember NPOV, and please cleanup. Dunc|☺ 23:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vote for now. If his blog is notable to criminologists, 1) please prove that to be true as we have no proof of it currently, and 2) the article then should be primarily about the blog, rather than what it is now. Dcarrano 05:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This was a major news story, it was on every major network and wire! I think being at the center of a several-weeks-long national news story is good enough evidence of noteworthiness. I cannot imagine why people think this should be deleted. Cleaned up, certainly, but not deleted. --168.150.251.36 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Being one of the top news stories for several days, as well as not only a sex offender but also most likely a murderer, makes him notable enough for an article. Academic Challenger 02:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Author's Comment: I went back and worked to clean up the article, corrections were made in the sequence of events. Spelling errors and grammatical issues were cleaned up. I added more recent information as knowledge of the case has developed. I placed a greater emphasis on the blog, "The Fifth Nail" as this is what sets this case apart from the, "run-of-the-mill" status of other similar articles. I next removed a link to my own website that lists proposed litigation aimed at controlling or governing sex offenders before the US Congress. Please let me know if I can do more to improve this article. I really would like to see it remain as there are people interested in learning more about sex offenders and studying this landmark case that includes evidence in the form of online websites maintained by the accused. Thank you for all the suggestions. jaimenote

• Author's Comment: Returned again to adjust paragraph and sentence structure, changed information likely to be considered dated in the near future and added a step by step description of the cycle of sexual assualt. Please review and all constructive comments are welcome! jaimenote

• Keep. But an extensive cleanup that infuses more NPOV and relayouts the article is needed. All psychopaths/criminals showing a notable particularirty have to be kept in Wikipedia. In this case, I think that the blog is 'interesting' enough for keeping it. Why delete this one, but keep Graham Capill? I say keep both. --133.68.21.115 07:13, 21 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.