Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ann Crecente (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP. Jinian 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Crecente

Procedural nomination. Article was previously deleted here and then speedily deleted as a repost by User:TexasAndroid. Deletion was overturned on DRV to relist at AfD given that new information had come to light. I'm Neutral. IronGargoyle 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Jennifer Ann's Group, which seems to be a proper place for the various laws passed after her death. As it stands, the amount of biographical information on the subject herself is near-to-nil. RGTraynor 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject of article has been cited in two laws passed by the Texas legislature this year. The subject of this article is separate and distinct from the group. The group has its own distinct article which discusses the efforts of the group. In addition to the two laws that have been passed the subject has also been discussed in many newspapers and on television as cited in the article. This is a well-sourced article and meets the criteria of WP:BIO. At worst this article could possibly be considered a stub but would not be appropriate to be merged or deleted. Finally, the most common complaint during the first AfD was that the legislation had not yet been proposed. Most were in agreement that if the legislation passed then the article would be appropriate for Wikipedia. At that time we did not expect TWO pieces of legislation, one of which is named for the subject of the article and has been named "Jennifer's Law." Please review the article in question for details about the legislation. Drew30319 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Umm ... what elements of WP:BIO do you claim the subject meets? The sum total of the information presented about her (as opposed to her murder and events leading thereafter) is her dates of birth and death and that she was a high school honor student that had a boyfriend at one point, all unremarkable facts shared by millions of people. The aftermath of her murder is certainly notable, but covered in the other article. Given that other article, a pass on WP:BIO is only supported if the facts of her life - all but completely absent here - would meet WP:BIO were she never murdered. RGTraynor 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I appreciate your point (and your taking time to follow the discussion) I disagree. There are many people - far more notable than the subject of this article - whose sole notoriety is based on a single event, be it their death or their assassination of a notable person. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, etc. While I don't presume to equate their newsworthiness, I make this point to show that it is sometimes a single event that thrusts somebody into notability. As to your question about what element of WP:BIO is met: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This has been sufficiently met and is very well-cited. Drew30319 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The distinction is that the person is the subject, as is the case with the examples you gave. We know a great deal about the lives of Booth, Oswald and Ruby; their biographies have been covered in countless books and articles. As their Wikipedia articles show, a wealth of biographical information is available. With Ms. Crecente, this does not seem to be the case. Her name, and nothing more than that, has been memorialized. Even by comparison with other crime victims (such as Kitty Genovese), her notability suffers: a directed Google search (minus Wikipedia, Myspace, Youtube and her memorial website) turns up only 26 hits [1], a paltry total. RGTraynor 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The proper search on Google would be:

"jennifer crecente" OR "jennifer ann crecente" Google search and the result is 533. You can also try misspellings of the last name (ie. "crescente" or "cresente") to add a few more. Even if the number WAS only 26 that would still be sufficient to meet the notability guidelines per WP:BIO. As the number is 500+ that's not an issue. She has been the subject of TWO laws, one of which is named for her. She has had a grant named for her for post-grad students. The article is very well-cited and all information is covered by the press (newspapers & TV) or legislature. Is your suggestion that more information be added to create a more robust biography?

Drew30319 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per RGTraynor. Propaniac 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. SImply not notable in life, and everything notable afterwards can/should be well covered by the group's article. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple sources and enduring notability. Addhoc 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- though I am agnostic as to whether the merged article should be named "Jennifer Ann Crecente" or "Jennifer Ann's Group", the two articles' content overlaps extensively. Alba 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is agnostic the word that you wanted to use???Balloonman 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't presume to speak for Alba but can say that agnostic is sometimes used to mean noncommittal or indifferent. Drew30319 06:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a strong argument for notability for "Jennifer Ann Crecente." There is also a clear separation between "Jennifer Ann's Group" and the article in question. I do not see a reason to merge or delete this article. Notability does not expire upon death. CuriousGiselle 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see added value to the reader from a merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jennifer Ann's Group, since the individual does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO and the article is a memorial for a murder victim. Edison 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I belive that notability of the subject is clear, and "Jennifer Ann Crecente" is a more likely search term than "Jennifer Ann's Group". Many people notable largely for a single incident have "biographical" articles, and IMO this is perfectly proper. Consider Thomas Shipp as an example. (note: This is not an WP:WAX argument, but rather an argument that such articles are in many cases proper, with an example to help illustrate this.) DES ^(talk) 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article doesn't add anything of value that the GROUP article doesn't already adress. Wikipedia isn't a memorial (The preceeding unsigned comment was left by Baloonman)
- Comment The two articles are significantly different. The GROUP article does not contain
  - any information regarding the murder,
  - the background of the victim, or
  - information regarding the $5,000 annual grant created by the Texas Psychological Association named The Jennifer Ann Crecente Memorial Grant.

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL states "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." These articles meet this condition - each on their own merits. Drew30319 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:19, 7 July 2007 (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.