Deletion of Jennifer Schuett

Comment: It's a minor story at best; these stories are becoming very common as DNA compilation technology becomes mature. This is a local news story with the usual cable channel overcoverage, and easily meets . As for the "over 500,000 hits"...don't go by that number. In truth if you take out the spammers, AP aggregators and false positives, Google only gives http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=gBE&num=50&q=%22Jennifer+Schuett%22&start=500&sa=N 373 total hits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  and . There's really nothing remarkable here, and nothing to indicate it's more than yet another flash-in-the-pan story. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Even with the large number of deletion votes, I think perhaps this deletion vote may be getting very one sided with alot of the calls for deletion focusing on what people think of this story's importance and not the actual coverage it has gotten.  I say this not to stir up hornets, but due to the fact that I just read "Colorado balloon incident".  If we compare the two articles, on one we have a rape victim who survived her throat being cut and has since become involved in victims rights circles over the past ten years.  This accompanied by massive news coverage when her attacker was located using the DNA.  The balloon incident is about a news story where a boy hid and was mistakenly thought to be in a balloon but was later found to not be.  Again, massive news coverage.  I really dont the see the difference between the two articles yet this article has a massive deletion call while the other one probably would survive a deletion vote without any problem (I do not intend to nominate it, due to ).  one could argue these are both passing news stories and should be deleted.  What is the difference?  I see none
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Was  - now 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There is nothing new about identifying a suspect based on DNA on the victim's clothing. It's great she survived and that a suspect was arrested, but so far it fails . It is not clear what it is that so amazed the FBI person; No one ever survived an attack before? No survivor ever wanted the perpetrator caught? DNA was never used before in a sex crime? See Gary Dotson for a case that actually was historic use of DNA rape evidence in 1988 to clear a man falsely convicted. It was used in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/wars.html 1986 to find an English rapist murderer The claims that it "is likely to redefine DNA case law" are pure ''|crystall ball gazing.'' The sad thing is that law enforcement had the suspect's DNA since 1996 and did not compare it to the evidence DNA of a horrible cold case until recently
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTALL)