Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Noyes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete --Allen3 talk 12:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jackie Noyes[edit]

Editors, you are hereby served a cease and desist letter. Forget about deletion. Every word of the entry is factually true.

Below I enumerate my options: - Trying to Slashdot.org the news of this delete attempt. The /. site is read by a million plus geeks (free-as-in-speech advocated) people daily. They would be grossly enraged about such low in their beloved Wikipedia. - Telling BBC. They are not fond of the US humanwrongs-wise.

  • The above comment was made unsigned by 195.70.48.242 (author of the article) ([1]). Cursive 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the vfd notice was removed by 195.70.48.242 only 8 minutes after originally put up by 195.92.40.49 (see [2])- I am only bringing this to attention because of the revert of the original vfd, and the above letter, wasn't sure where else to put this. Cursive 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs to be cleaned up and wikified. Possibly merged to a "prison rape" article. I've been Googling for the story, but haven't found anything in mainstream media yet. Al 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — an ugly story, but it doesn't seem notable in and of itself. This VfD discussion needs to be monitored for edits by 195.92.40.49. — RJH 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, an ugly story, but I've found no indication that this is some sort of "international scandal" or even that this woman's case is being used as a reason to get the law changed. Either of those things would make this story (and thus the victim) notable. As an aside, the original author's reaction to this nomination is rather amusing. Neither Slashdot nor the BBC would care about a single article being deleted from Wikipedia, and using this threatening tactic in defense of an article isn't going to change anyone's mind. android79 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Article has merit but is sorely in need of work.Gateman1997 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the story is false, delete as hoax. If the story is true, delete as not notable. Nasty business indeed, but not encyclopedic nasty business. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, and blackmail sucks. RasputinAXP 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. And slashdot away, you really think anyone cares? Nandesuka 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wouldn't have bothered voting but amused by the idea that the BBC would care. Agentsoo 17:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an exceptionally notable crime, as it doesn't seem to have attracted extensive media attention. Obviously most rape and murder crimes that don't happen in very large cities will garner at least some notice in local papers. --Icelight 18:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated by Starblind and to flip the bird to the threat by the author. -EDM 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Carnildo 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, but if for some unlikely reason it's kept, it needs to be run through a few NPOV filters. 23skidoo 00:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Starblind. The story happened, but sadly, it's simply not notable and the article is not encyclopedic - it's more a news story like one might read on Slashdot. Xaa 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sad but nn. "Cease and desist"? That's a laugh. --Etacar11 01:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have article about the criminal bitch PFC Lynnie exploiting detainees like animals, than we should have article about a detainee being exploited. If we only carry the criminals, then Wiki is aiming for a new low. Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so the amount of media attention is not a measure for inclusion. If it were, Wiki should be called Reader's Digest instead. But as far as news go, Jackie's federal venue civil rights violation lawsuit series will certainly make it into the big news sooner or later, so why not have the article now?
As for Slashdot, they already the carry the news from yesterday, that wikipedia is starting to censor officially (read it here: http://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/05/2012229.shtml?tid=187&tid=95). I think this Jackie Noyes article is perfect example why wikipedia will fail. People delete info they find disturbing and the majority of netizens are in USA, so only US-pinkglasses info can be posted and wiki has less and less to do with reality over time. However, I need to warn, that it is EN.wikipedia.org and not US.wikipedia.org, so you cannot sanitize this wiki of all US-condemning info.
By the way, the Jackie case was an international affair, because it was the AI who did most to get her and the baby out of prison. They secured the support of a european monarch, mother herself, who contacted the wisconsin governor via a mutual friend, an influental lobbist-businessman and this really set things in motion. But this is not offical info that could get into wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by 213.178.101.126; user's 1st edit.)
    • The Slashdot story you link to describes greater editorial control, not censorship, and if you would bother to read the comments, many Slashdotters think this is a necessary thing to add to Wikipedia. I'm personally ambivalent about the idea. Please point out above the voters you think wish to "censor" this particular article based on finding the article "disturbing." This is not censorship; this is editing. android79 14:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Jimbo has officially said the aforementioned story is complete bunk. Yelyos 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Prisoners, and mental patients, get raped in prisons and mental institutions around the world every day. It's sad. Scandalous, even. It would be instructive, and encyclopedic, to have information on the incidence of such events in various countries around the world. Anons and slashdotters, feel free to make such an article and include this person in it on an equal NPOV basis with other identified victims of prison abuse worldwide. This person, alone, is unencyclopedic for reasons of disproportionality in view of her non-notability. Oh, and in view of the last anon post, add to the reasons for deletion: conspiracy theory. -EDM 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I think, given the media coverage, that this is notable enough for Wikipedia. However, it really needs to be cleaned up, and should be linked from Custodial rape. Lots of girls go missing each year - what makes an Elizabeth Smart notable and not a Nicole Morin is the relative media coverage in each case, and if Jackie has become some sort of media figure representing custodial rape, by all means we should include the article. Blackmail is unfortunate, but it shouldn't factor in our decision to keep an article unrelated to the perpetrator. Yelyos 07:07, August 7, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackie_Noyes&oldid=1137938984"