Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanine Nicarico


 * 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 moved from a biography to an article on the associated case --Stephen1-800-STEVE 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeanine Nicarico

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pretty much WP:NOT: this article demonstrates no notability other than being a murder victim; i.e. no substantial or abnormally huge media frenzy, legislation named after this individual. PROD contested by author without comment. hbdragon88 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete When the subject in question was alive, she was definitely not notable by Wikipedia standards. Her death was an unfortunate event, but one must take note that Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 07:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT - No historic notability Corpx 07:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Keep due to the death penalty moratorium. I think that asserts historic notability.    This should be moved from Jeanine Nicarisco to the name of the trial.  Corpx 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jeanine herself was not notable during her lifetime (1972 to 1983). However, the investigation and trials relating to her murder were very notable. Scott Turow, at a time when he was already a famous novelist, represented one of the defendants, and discussed the case in his nonfiction book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote numerous columns about the case. There was also a book about the case titled Victims of Justice by Thomas Frisbie and Randy Garrett. And here's coverage from Time magazine and CNN and CBS News. Note that the Time and CNN pieces are from 1999, and the CBS piece is from 2006. --Metropolitan90 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm undecided. This is probably the most famous of several botched prosecutions that led to the Illinois death penalty moratorium. In truth the notable figure here is Rolando Cruz, the man who was falsely imprisoned and later released. It may make more sense to move this material to Rolando Cruz (for various reasons, his co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez does not seem to have become as great a focus). Cruz was, for a time, a definite Illinois celebrity. The coverage of the Nicarico case in the media almost always was as a discussion of how it fit or didn't fit the case the prosecution made against Cruz and Hernandez, and other sundry proposed perpetrators including Buckley (who is not otherwise notable). The prosecution of the prosecution team for proceeding despite obvious disparities in evidence was also notable, but problematic as a separate article, an argument for a combined article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now voting keep as Jeanine Nicarico murder case, as my work on the article shows. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions.   -- Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the material but possibly move to Rolando Cruz or Jeanine Nicarico murder cases to better reflect the focus of the article of the basic case and all the offshoots, including the prosecution of the prosecutors (as noted by Dhartung), which should be added here. -- DS1953 talk 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I moved this article to Jeanine Nicarico murder case which is the convention for such articles and which better describes the present (stubby) contents. This was a major case which had effects on society. It involved some of the accused being twice convicted of murder with no physical evidence, only alleged statement by the accused, while a different convicted murderer, Brian Dugan, had admitted commiting the crimes. His admission was reported later confrmed by DNA testing. It had a major effect on society in that it was a large part of what led the Governor of Illinois to pardon all death row inmates. The hue and cry over the overzealous prosecutions played a large part in preventing the prosecutor in the trials from winning a statewide illiection in Illinois many years after the death. It was featured in a book by author Scott Turow . Reporter Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune wrote many columns about the case over the years, as sumarized in . The prosecutors in the original trials were themselves later tried for framing the men and acquitted, but the defendants got a 3.5 million dollar settlement. This murder case has passed the test of time and is a highly notable one, with scores of columns and several books over the decades since it occurred satisfying WP:N. The stub article has adequate sources to be edited into a good article. Edison 23:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but incorporate the contents of the AfD. Is there any practical way to get articles improved without having to bring them to AfD.? DGG (talk)
 * Comment In my experience, getting on the main page or in the list of recent deaths helps a lot. In this case I think AFD is serving as an RFC more than cleanup per se, but I am trying to clean up the article, in particular a whopper of a BLP issue. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean BLP issues about saying Brian Dugan admitted the murder, or BLP issues about Jim Ryan and Joseph Birkett's prosecution of the case? Edison 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually as I came to it the article quite falsely said that Stephen Buckley had confessed, not Brian Dugan. Secondly, the prosecutors were said to have been acquitted of framing Cruz and Hernandez without any source. Admittedly, this story is full of such minefields, but those were the two that leapt out at me as needing immediate attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have collected 18 references satisfying WP:A on the talk page of the article, with links to online versions, which help to show the notabiility of the case. My only search at this time was by Google, so material published more than a few years ago does not show up and is not available online, but I certainly saw dozens more stories about the case over the past 24 years. The task is to improve the story with additional references such as these which are available. Edison 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and wikipedia articles do not honour dead people anyway, SqueakBox 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read the article carefully, as well as the reference on the talk page before voting to delete it. It is in no respect a memorial page. It is a notable and controversial legal case with 23 years of coverage, which had wide ranging effects on the application of the death penalty. Edison 05:11, 27 July 2007 (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.