- 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. It appears that unanimous consensus exists to keep this article on the site, so I am going to go ahead and close this nomination. ( non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 11:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Suzette Jordan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E the subject was raped and is solely notable due to that incident and for disclosing her identity .She did receive a lot of coverage when she died recently but that is News .This lacks WP:LASTING beyond this rape case and all news reports mention the term rape victim or rape survivor while refering to the subject and is notable only for the park street rape case .Note edited it for clarity. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for notifying me, Pharaoh of the Wizards. In a context in which conviction rates have fallen by over 45% from the early '70s, 3/4th of the reported perpetrators go unpunished and in which rape remains largely unreported because of stigma and discrimination (see here), Jordan became noted across India as an anti-rape campaigner for her courageous stance and disclosure. She was notable before her death, but her death sadly offers WP the citations required to establish it. For instance, Economic and Political Weekly is South Asia's leading academic journal; this obituary for Suzette in EPW would confirm notability, I hope. Please let me know if you need modification in the way the article is written to improve it; I began the stub, but others, of course, have worked on it since. thanks, Anasuyas ( talk) 00:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The reason given for deletion ( BLP1E) does not apply. There were two events: (1) the rape and (2) the decision to go public; both received substantial coverage. Furthermore, condition #3 of BLP1E is clearly not met: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." - Pete ( talk) 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to say disagree almost coverage to her is due to her being raped and all sources call her a Rape survivor and disagree there are two events .Now they refer her by name as she disclosed it and she received media coverage even otherwise in the Nirbhaya the victim's family received much wider coverage even through name of the victim was not disclosed it was disclosed much later. [1] , [2] [3] [4] [5] all of them refer as rape victim or survivor .The Park Street rape case is notable and the subject can be mentioned there . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. In Indian society, very few rape victims take the path she has chosen, because rape victims are wrongly ostracised. While that aspect has drawn publicity, in her case, it served as an exemplar for rape victims to show the world as victims, they have nothing to hide from. The impact of her message has been tangible. It is not estimable just by media statistics and Google Hits. Imho she qualifies for Keep. AshLin ( talk) 02:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Peteforsyth: The point of notability is not her having been raped, but her having taken an unusual path following the rape, that has succeeded in bringing national attention to policy and law issues surrounding rape in India. Ijon ( talk) 02:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - notability can be seen by the reliable sources that discuss the topic under park street rape - [6] [7] Notability may also be seen by the amount of press coverage on her and the history of the judicial case as well. [8] [9] [10] and here is something rather appropriately titled - Why was Suzette Jordan’s death ignored? Shyamal ( talk) 04:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - meets GNG regardless of WP:BLP1E. There are multiple independent reliable sources devoted to discussing her specifically. Kaldari ( talk) 06:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep For all the reasons mentioned above and many many more. E.Doornbusch ( talk) 06:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Well sourced article about a notable individual. As an aside, "(s)he later died" applies to *most* historical biographies on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 06:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- As per
WP:BLP the subject died only March 15 2015
WP:BDP policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside Extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime .Find it inappropriate that a separate article is being created for a rape victim immediately after her death and she has 2 Teenage daughters 15 and 17 years and also per
WP:AVOIDVICTIM .
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 07:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The article states that she died from meningoencephalitis, not suicide or crime, so this is a spurious argument. Orderinchaos 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC
- WP:BLP does apply as she died recently and she is notable only for being a victim .Creating articles for rape victims or even naming them in articles even they have been identified will be a WP:BLP violation and can have legal implications in general. Disagree if you are saying that anyone can create an article for any rape victim . This RFC is only after deep discussion that Jyoti Singh Pandey's name was included in the article and not included after her family initially disclosed her name in the 2012 Delhi gang rape . She is notable as a victim in the park street rape and her Judicial case her received a lot of attention but that can be dealt under park street rape case article as is the case with most rape case articles. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Have you actually read WP:BLP? Orderinchaos 09:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments ,I understand where you stand and respect your view but bluntly put you can call it Ignore all rules ,I would take the side in the case of rape victims error in the side of caution hence would apply WP:BLP and WP:BDP judically and avoid naming rape victims on site even if identified elsewhere unless there is community consensus like here even through it was identified ,You can it call WP:IAR if you wish in the side of caution would avoid naming rape victims who are alive or have died recently within a few month or so this is general not specific to this article. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All the above reasons and common sense. Jan-Bart ( talk) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. "She later died". Seriously? That's actually a reason for nominating a biography for deletion? I'd love to see any other biography that was deleted for that reason. Witty lama 09:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if not clear clarified better. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:58, 21 April 2015 (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.