Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Rustad

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Rustad

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:BLP1E candidate; all sources are related to the DNA "witness" aspect of her life, and she doesn't seem to have lasting encyclopedic notability outside that event. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Wikipedia pages about users with less notoriety and fewer web link references than this, and those pages were maintained as valid upon deletion challenges. There are multiple sources linked in the article from newspapers, magazines, documentaries, books, and other media explaining the public interest in Chelsea Rustad. Suggesting that being a genetic witness in the first case to ever go to trial or result in a conviction, and being featured in an assortment of cited media (and currently being featured in the news cycle) means the person has no notoriety, is subjective and demonstrably false. The original deletion request was submitted by the user SneaselxLv94 who elected to include a bunch of personal insults and sleights about a person he has never met, because he had a public interest in the person he claims he has no public interest about. This is a ridiculous abuse of the deletion request system for the clear purpose of vandalizing an article and trolling other users on Wikipedia. The article should be maintained and the user SneaselxLv94 should be warned and/or banned about vandalizing pages with rude, sexist, and totally unfounded personal insults. Nemesis 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachelsea (talk • contribs)
- WP has many articles that needs to be improved or deleted, it's part of the nature of this place. As time goes on, Wikipedians may get around to it. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't help much, WP:BASIC supporting sources does. Number of web link references is not the issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pikachelsea:, do we have this straight, and are you really going with "This is a ridiculous abuse of the deletion request system for the clear purpose of vandalizing an article and trolling other users on Wikipedia" to complain about other people being rude and launching unfounded personal insults? Ravenswing 10:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ravenswing: Thank you. I am following Wikipedia's guidelines and she says I am trolling her by proposing a deletion of an article about her that violates several policies. Sneasel talk 17:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you refusing to sign your posts correctly? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also note that, according to the edit summary of [1], the article was created by its subject. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should err towards not having an article for a person known only for one event and who is otherwise a private entity. Pikachelsea's hyperbolic ad hominems against NxSB don't help their case a whit, and nor does their forumshopping at AN/I or their whataboutism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 03:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 03:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 03:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:BLP1E and there is no real notability here. Details belong on the page for the case. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E violation, absolutely, and I agree that Pikachelsea is doing her attempt at self-promotion - including pushing a book she's written about the incident -- no favors by her intemperate personal attacks. Ravenswing 05:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Murders of Jay Cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg per WP:ATD. We don't delete BLP1Es, we merge them to the event, giving appropriate weight to the individual's participation in that notable event. In this case, that's not going to be a whole lot, but there is some material here that might reasonably survive in that article. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... if there's anything to merge, which there isn't. E Eng 11:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per WP:BLP1E~~ Not at all notable, fails GNG - no need to merge as the suggested target adequately covers Ms Rustad's involvement in the case with due weight. -Roxy the dog. wooF 06:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that it perhaps has too much, which would make a merge look a lot like a redirect. But still, no, deletion isn't expected per WP:BIO1E, redirection is. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed my rationale. Is that better? -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this has the appearance of a vanity article by the subject. Per WP:BLP1E not notable. W C M_email 10:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity autobio by 1E passively involved in a murder case -- her contribution was to swab inside her own cheek and seal an envelope. Here's all you need to know about what's going on here: https://inheritedsecrets.com/ (WARNING: contains weird photo of subject standing on a rock in an incongruously slinky dress that somehow makes her appear to have 10 toes on each foot). Talk about "Notability is not inherited"! E Eng 11:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering myself what was "groundbreaking" about Ms. Rustad, as her website claims; DNA from relatives was being used to solve cases a couple decades ago now. Ravenswing 16:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, what's been going on for decades is that you have a suspect and (not having their DNA for whatever reason) you look at DNA of their relatives. What's relatively new is the "cold" trawling of these huge databases to find the suspect in the first place. But even that's not new in this case. What's new here, apparently, is this this is the first such case where the accused was stupid enough to go to trial. Big deal.
And I've been meaning to say... there's no such thing as a "genetic witness". That's just the catchy title of a book on DNA evidence in general. E Eng 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AND ANOTHER THING: This gal's trying to use us to promote her tacky family-tree business: https://wwwDOTfiverrDOTcom/pikachelsea/create-and-research-your-family-tree-on-ancestry . Gimme break. E Eng 19:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotional autobiography created by the article subject. Non-notable, just trying to promote themselves. Fails notability. She's actually not done anything, just did a DNA swab. No achievement here, just a person who happened to be a connecting dot who is trying to milk some fame out of it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above this seems to be a self-promotional autobiography, written by someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for social media. It is unfortunate that the 'anyone can edit' sloganising encourages this sort of misunderstanding, which is far from infrequent, but misunderstandings don't justify inappropriate content. If Ms Rustad wants publicity, she will have to look elsewhere, since the autobiography does nothing to indicate that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it's a self-promotional article. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to Murders of Jay Cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg. The name should be a search term, but we should remove this autobiography from the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, not a search term and no redirect. This is a classic example of someone who not only is nonnotable, but who we would not even mention by name in the article on the event in which she was only peripherally involved -- and involuntarily at that [2]. There's nothing to redirect to, nor should there be. E Eng 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are multiple reasons (WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E) including violations of WP:COI. This is just a vanity article. She is throwing a temper tantrum over my initial proposal for deletion, as if that will make a difference. Sneasel talk 17:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to look a lot like Christmas ... Ravenswing 18:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and self-promotional spam. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMOTION. "Other stuff exists" is no reason to keep an autobiography. Miniapolis 03:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murders of Jay Cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg. Vanispamcruftisement it may be, but it does seem like there is SIGCOV from a few reliable sources. That said, this is irrelevant because the subject is obviously WP:BLP1E. If there were any coverage of the subject unrelated to this event, however, I would say to keep. jp×g 07:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my earlier post: there's no possibility of even mentioning the subject in the murder article, because we don't name nonnotables who played incidental roles such as winning a free DNA kit, sticking a Q-tip in their mouth, and licking a stamp. So there's nothing to redirect to. E Eng 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at what I can find online: this seems to come fairly close, but is still largely about the one event. jp×g 07:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close to an RS. E Eng 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a group blog about movies and TV shows (typical headline: "Latest episode of X, explained!") is not material to build a biography with. I suspect it's a press release recycled for clicks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2021 (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.