Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jayne Vercoe

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, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. WP:BLP1E issues, though raised, do not form a compelling argument for deletion, since WP:BLP1E is intended primarily to avoid unjustified harmful publicity being focused upon people through little or no fault of their own. For example, the sort of articles whose deletions were disputed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff might qualify for deletion under WP:BLP1E. However, persons who stand convicted of serious felonies, like Sarah Jayne Vercoe [1], have no one but themselves to blame for their own infamy. John254 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jayne Vercoe[edit]

I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go.

By the way, I'm getting these names by going through a list often posted by I-know-not-who as a "See Also" list on articles regarding gender politics, sex abuse, and other related topics (for example, here). I've often noticed this list and sometimes deleted it from articles, but I have no particular point to make against the guy who posts it, I just remembered it tonight when another AfD made me think of the tendency of forgotten scandals to remain immortalized in Wikipedia articles. If anyone knows who the list's promoter is (I think he uses an IP range) please notify him. Dybryd 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't think that it passes WP:N any more. James-Sugrono_{Contributions} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's notable .. but let's see the outcome as nom said :) Elmao 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree! That's why I nominated her!

Dybryd 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As her case caused a change in the laws of Tasmania, I would think that means the case is notable, so I'd think she was. Red Fiona 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO with multiple non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Red Fiona, with a comment. I'm a little uneasy about the nominations this nom has presented. I'm always willing to assume good faith. However, looking at these nominations and the comments made by the nom (She was referenced in South Park--why nominate the article, then?) as well as the odd agreement with the keep vote above, I don't know what the motives behind this are, and I hope I'm wrong, but let me make one thing clear. Afd is not about testing the waters or seeing the behavioral patterns of people who vote on Afds, unless it's a procedural vote, in which the nom may have no opinion, which these are not.--Sethacus 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see that being referenced on South Park adds anything to figuring out notability. It's pretty much the same thing as showing up on late-night comedy routines, and anything that's a current news item might show up on current events-aware comedies. ... Now, if some comedy show ten years from the incident references it, then that's an indication that the incident/person has achieved lasting notoriety, cultural significance, and notability. --lquilter 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sethacus, I nominated the articles because I don't think they're notable under WP:BLP1E. I nominated them all at once because I don't thing any of them are notable. I agree that "notability is not temporary" - because it means the opposite of what user:Kintetsubuffalo seems to think it means. I'm amused to see now that folks are arguing for Vercoe's significance on the grounds that she is connected to the creation of the Code of Professional Ethics for the Teaching Profession in Tasmania. And yet no one has bothered to create that article! It's hypocrisy to pretend that her article exists because of the law when it contains nothing about the law and everything about the prurient details of her case. WP:BLP1E says "Cover the event, not the person." I would support a sentence or two about Vercoe in a full treatment of the Code of Professional Ethics for the Teaching Profession in Tasmania. But, in the absence of any information on that law, it does not justify a lengthy article about an unremarkable criminal. Dybryd 11:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or maybe you could create the article on the law. I 1) thought there was one, and 2) my wiki-skills are not up to it.Red Fiona 12:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an interesting conundrum. But, I have to ask, as this idea (or something similar) has been approached at the Toby Studebaker Afd, for which myself and the two above have been participants, why? Why create an article on the basis of adding a one or two sentence remark about how these peoples' crimes inspired others (in positive ways, of course)? Others would just leave wondering about the stories of Vercoe and Studebaker. A word I keep seeing is "unremarkable". Let me give you two examples. Kasey Kazee (whose name should still be a redlink). The "duct tape bandit", he held up a liquor store, covering his face with duct tape. The only reason it got any coverage was his sheer stupidity. We HAD an article on this guy. It was, rightfully, speedy deleted. Another guy who's best known for one crime. Guy in the 60's, killed a few people, went to trial, is serving life in prison. Oh, yeah, I forgot. His name is Charles Manson. Charlie may have done some heinous things, but he is known for one event, the Tate-LaBianca Murders. It appears, IMO, Vercoe is caught somewhere in the middle. I would like to know more, if possible about the Code of Professional Ethics for the Teaching Profession in Tasmania and its effect on Tasmania. As far as I've seen, Vercoe has had a fair chunk of coverage in Australia for over a year after these crimes were committed, plus minor (1 article) coverage in two other countries, though, oddly, not the US (I wonder how I heard of her, then...).--Sethacus 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not temporary, but people may be confused between notability and press coverage. Relevant points from WP:N:
- This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1] (emphasis added)
- "Notability is not temporary. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.[10] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." (emphasis added)

--lquilter 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - As her case lead to a change in Tasmanian law, would you merge the details into the page for that particular law? Red Fiona 10:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, but it would obviously be far fewer details. Is there a page for Tasmanian sex offender law? was the change case law-based or statutory? Either way, yes, it seems like it would be appropriate to mention it in the relevant article about the law, if it led to a change in the law, or was a widely publicized incident that caused discussion of the law. ... I don't think we would want to have biographical articles about every plaintiff or defendant in every case that has precedential significance, so I don't think that merely being a party in a legal precedent-setting case is notable. If an otherwise-notable person had a role in a precedent-setting case, I think it's worth a small mention in the person's biographical article; but if an otherwise-unnotable person had a role in a precedent-setting case, then I think only so many details as would ordinarily show up in a case summary. No legal encyclopedia would include the biography of the parties, for instance. --lquilter 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... or is the "law" the "Code of Professional Ethics" referenced above? Codes of professional ethics are not often actual laws; they're more often codes adopted by professional associations. I'm not sure that a regional/state-based would be notable, but that would be a different AFD. --lquilter 15:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As with the others, why not have a single article that surveys the cases and notes any trends that have been discussed in the media? Surely that would actually be informative. Unlike simply having multiple such articles giving an impression of sensationalism, having one article covering the issue could in fact discuss sensationalism, moral panics, increase in rates of abuse versus rates of reporting, and other relative topics to the trend (if there is one). --lquilter 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 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.