Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Amanda Froistad


 * 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. There is fairly clear consensus that this incident has fairly substantive coverage in reliable sources, and thus is basically notable. If those advocating to merge this still feel strongly about it, a merge discussion might be a better venue. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Death of Amanda Froistad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOT NEWS, and BLP1E  DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and Note that creation of a page about a 1995 murder is generally not  a case of NOTNEWS.   In addition to ONGOING local coverage: Rapid City Journal, 2002  Settlement awarded in girl's death, a case went to the State Supreme Court .  There is an academic article already on the page. And there is WP:SIGCOV in books: Here: The Third Lie: Why Government Programs Don't Work—and a Blueprint for Change, By Dean and the Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence Richard J Gelles, Richard J Gelles, Routledge, 2016.  and here: Out of Harm's Way: Creating an Effective Child Welfare System by  Richard Gelles, Oxford University Press, 2017.   User:DGG, do you want to rethink this one, maybe just tag for improvement?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this content was moved from the recently G11'd Moderation Management (which also leaves me nonplussed). This has substantial coverage in scholarly sources and news sources (as pointed to above). It's also a very important case in terms of the legal functioning of addiction recovery groups and support groups in general, not to mention the online bystander effect. - Scarpy (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 'Comment I agree the policy is ONEEVENT, in general,  -  NOT NEWS and BLP1E are not relaly relecant. my error. But it would seem that the academic work cited deals with this onl in passing, or as an example.  DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I declined to nominate this page for deletion when reviewing it yesterday. I'm not convinced either way about notability, but there are very clear content issues with the article.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The case can be briefly mentioned in a page on another general subject, such as the Bystander effect (just as it was mentioned in a couple of books), but it clearly does not deserve a separate page - agree with DGG. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment' I need to admit that I did not perceive some o the general concerns, that might make it more suitable for merging than deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I urge page creator User:Defendingaa to return and improve the page, which does not adequately describe this crime or its significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage in scholarly literature . ——  SerialNumber  54129  21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The event has adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. It does not violate WP:BLP1E because the article is about the event.  And the article is consistent with WP:ONEEVENT.Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - to Bystander effect. The only notable part of this tragic filicide is the bystander effect part. There's info at that destination now, but perhaps a little more could be merged, along with the reaction info I just forked off into its own section. On a related note, I do think that Moderation Management should have its own article.  I've heard of it and know several people who have participated in the group. Because of the group's leadership's reluctance to turn in Mr. Froistad, this tragic incident would warrant a mention in the article's history section. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment please see this ANI and related conversation. We had reached a consensus on that page that the amount of information previously in the Moderation Management article on related to the death of Amanda Froistad looked WP:COATRACKish. Without speculating about User:DGG's intentions, it's very unfortunate that this information can't be referenced in this AfD as it's now gone (he nominated this page for AfD and the Moderation Management page for speedy deletion). The Moderation Management deleting admin, User:RHaworth either doesn't want to discuss this or is on some kind of wikibreak. I asked for a deletion review but imagine that will take several days for an outcome. I really don't think this AfD should proceed without that context, but here were are. - Scarpy (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (sorry for the double dip) if we're talking about notability "outside" of the WP:GNG, this is notable for reasons other than the  bystander effect. It's a high profile case that establishes a legal--and to some extent social--precedent for information that's shared within peer-run support groups. Plenty of support groups, twelve-step groups in particular, encourage 'anonymity' among members. In meetings guidance is given along the lines of "whom you see here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." It has encyclopedic value to have reference material showing the legal and social extent to which this is true (or not true). - Scarpy (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you bring up an interesting point, but I'm still not sure that being an example of the downside of the anonymity given perpetrators due to doctor/support group/patient confidentiality sends this into keep territory. I could see how this might contribute some material for a new section in Self-help groups for mental health, named something like "perpetrator confidentiality". Reading this again makes it seem that it's a Venn diagram of themes that can feed multiple articles with short info but in aggregate isn't enough for a standalone article. TimTempleton (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To your last point, there is more than enough WP:RS here for the WP:GNG. To your other point, legal cases clarifying expectations of anonymity in cases of perpetrators and non-perpetrators alike are important. Cases like this one set the precedent that in the US there is nothing like therapist-client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Even if support groups encourage anonymity/confidentiality, it's important to have cases showing the extent to which this carries (when in the US is not at all, legally speaking). Depending on your opinion, this is either a feature or a criticism of support groups in the US. (I believe Germany has some laws governing support groups). This passes the WP:GNG and has other encyclopedic value in the case of peer-run support groups and the bystander effect. This is what Wikipedia is here for. - Scarpy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article's creator. The extensive references unquestionably establish notability.  Keep in mind that this murder is not only notable as being an example of the Bystander Effect (as a couple delete votes incorrectly state); it is also notable and described in reliable third party sources as being an example of someone dying because of bureaucratic incompetence.  For example: .  I agree that the article currently is, at best, start class, and I hope to have some time this weekend to expand and improve it, but a new article being imperfect is not grounds for deletion. Defendingaa (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article; it is no longer a stub and is of higher quality than it was when nominated. Defendingaa (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment compiled a list of WP:RS that could be used in the article, located here: Talk:Death of Amanda Froistad. - Scarpy (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making that large list of references. With dozens of references from notable sites (news accounts about the death; news accounts about the trial; news accounts about the lawsuit caused by the death; accounts in books about how it’s an example of the Bystander Effect; accounts in books about how her death was an example of bureaucratic incompetence; etc.), I think the article’s notability is without question.  Defendingaa (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, because of the non-trivial coverage in reliable sources placed on the talk page. Please restrict the article to reliable secondary sources, rather than primary coverage such as news reports.  Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Slam-dunk keep, but rename to Murder of Amanda Froistad as her father was convicted of the crime and thus the M-word can be used in the title. This was notable at the time—I still recall it today and was surprised we didn't have an article on it until now, but maybe given the things I've been the one to start articles on from long ago I shouldn't be. Sources? The New York Times covered it even though it happened way out on the Plains, there is scholarly work on it, because it's notable for people on the email list not reporting it and, in fact, getting mad at the people who did because they violated the list's confidentiality. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but moving an article while AfD (Article for deletion) is in progress can cause issues, so I will do this if the article passes AfD. Defendingaa (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. BLP1E not relevant as this is on the crime, not the person. The crime has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple books (apparently due to the peculiarities of the welfare system failure, confession in an e-mail list, and details of the crime) over the past 20 years and easily passes WP:NCRIME / WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.