Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case


 * 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.

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case
The result was Delete G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject. (amended by closer - see below) billinghurst  sDrewth  14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Chosing which speedy delete criteria was difficult, however this page is contentious and may do potential harm. WP:IAR delete, with WP:BLP of an eleven year old, concerns due to poor sourcing and lack of balance, non-encyclopaedic, and invitation to review at DRV and restore if consensus agrees." billinghurst  sDrewth  14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclosure - It came out shortly after the above deletion that the closer had not really meant G10 so much as generalized serious concerns over harm to the point of early deletion (which was roughly his explanation). The wording above was my resulting comment and suggestion to the closing admin how he might help reduce drama by making the basis of his explanation clearer to the community for when the inevitable DRV was filed, and to clearly encourage review (which would probably be required and good practice even if not). I did not take part in any decision to early close nor express a personal view on the AFD. FT2 (Talk 14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non noteable article. Also, extremely biased. Crisis   Doomsday  /Clock  18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it was apparently mentioned in ABC News. That's notable.  And bias is nothing that can't be fixed with editing. --khfan93 (t) (c) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: WP:SNOW Keep. It's obvious where this is going. Ingersollian (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Keep, obviously, as the article's creator. I must say, I've never seen a new article nominated for both AfD and DYK at the same time! To respond to User:Crisis, WP:NOTABILITY is easily fulfilled by the broad range of mainstream third-party references (in American and international media), and any bias you perceive should be addressed by editing the article itself and participating on its Talk page. Ingersollian (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable by now. Gawker, San Francisco Chronicle, CBS News, News Limited, etc. These are all from the first results page for the name. I also read the article a few hours ago; I didn't find it too biased at all. It is a pretty good article; if there's any obvious bias, then that's probably just a result of the actual events that occurred, not because the article is trying to paint the events in a way that it's not. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of notable sources, and what bias, it's a list of facts. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me  &#92; 18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give you an example. I just had to remove a segment of a sentence that said "she allegedly created nude photographs of herself and released them to internet pedophiles". As someone who posts occasionally on 4chan and was thus sitting in the eye of the shitstorm, the alleged pic is actually part of one of her videos, where she lifted up her top and covered her breast with her hand. That's not releasing it to pedophiles, that's releasing it to YouTube users in general. Crisis    Doomsday  /Clock  18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're all glad you've corrected that inaccurate description in the article, Crisis, but that is not a rationale for article deletion. Ingersollian (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very notable, and with plenty of secondary sources. Also if the article is biased, tag accordingly. Likeminas (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might like to read Speedy keep and explain which of the criteria the nomination meets. CIreland (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read There are zero remaining arguments for deletion and I thought it was good enough. But I guess you're right. A better vote would been Strong keep Likeminas (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep If this has caused enough of a stir to be mentioned on mainstream media, it's notable enough. As with khfan93's comment, biased portions can be edited to comply with NPOV. GB 86 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Notability is not an issue, its been firmly established. That said, I honestly wonder if this doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS. The problem is, that at least right now, its too difficult to know without a crystal ball, whether this will be a blip on the news radar, or something with lasting encyclopedic merit. So I say leave it for now, and come back in a month or two and re-examine. If there's no further coverage than this initial current burst and any minor followups, then deletion might be warranted. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very similar to Star Wars Kid, and while "other crap exists" is typically an argument to avoid, that particular article has been heavily vetted and stands up. Concerns about content are valid, but not reason for deletion; the article should be kept and maintained carefully to avoid becoming an attack page. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTNEWS is routinely ignored at AfD, so why not here too? Resolute 22:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for now. The best argument I see put forth is WP:NOTNEWS which does raise the question of "will this still be notable two years hence?"  At the present time however it's something of a hotbutton issue, has received coverage on Good Morning America and several print and online news outlets, etc, so notability in the present is virtually beyond question.  The article could use some sprucing but is surprisingly not that bad, relatively free of bias, decently sourced, etc.  My only reservation is that this could die down to sheer nothingness at any time and if that happens I would end up likely supporting deletion, as I do not believe something that merited a few days of minor news coverage is truly noteworthy - still I support keeping at this time since prematurely deleting it is jumping the gun. - OldManNeptune (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That logic fails WP:N - If it is notable now, its notable forever. But we dont keep something on the premise that it MIGHT become notable in the future, particularly something with such troublesome BLP issues. Active Banana (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Remember, simply saying NOTNEWS is not an argument. the actual guidelines for news and current events are pretty complex. This, to me, appears to be a unique, new form of cyberbullying, in that the person bullied first engaged in apparently very irresponsible behavior for a person their age. not that im justifying the bullying, but i think the details make this inherently notable. it may not be talked about as much 2 years from now, but it will, in my opinion, be a part of a lot of writings on cyberbullying, age of consent to post on ones own, parental controls. I would prefer such articles begin as sections in larger articles, but this has the marks of import.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - /yawn, WP:NOTNEWS, a blip with no lasting significance other than to tug at middle America's think of the children heartstrings. Whiny tween mouths off on the internet, attracts the wrath of the Killer /b/'s, hilarity ensues.  Her encyclopediadramatica article is a hoot, though. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (question): Is her own will known? A professional Wikipedia article can help her situation (turning the possible moralizing / victim-blaming attitudes of mass into a broader view), but an article of that quality may require expert supervision. An article can be both a nuisance and a great relief for her. Knowing her own will would make the decision easier. Is anything known about this, or is any way of checking this possible? (In the Hope Witsell and Ryan Halligan cases of cyberbullying-induced suicides, this question is not more valid, but Jessi Slaughter is living, and viewing from legal aspect, she may turn out not to be a public figure, although I lack knowledge to judge it). Anticyberbullying (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * to a certain degree, her own will is irrelevant. she is too young to make decisions for herself about how public she wishes to be. that is the sole responsibility of her parents/guardians, until she is of consent/emancipated. she may want her name on the front page of the NYT, and the parents can legally deny her that. however, if any reliable sources show her thoughts, they can be added to article. I wonder if the parents might request that WP protect her identity on her behalf. probably too late for that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go out on a limb and suggest that any goal other than simply recording the straight facts as they are made available by reliable sources is both unattainable and doomed to failure. First, as Mercury points out she's not just underage but in some jurisdictions not even a juvenile.  "Her will" is therefore a legal non-entity.  Second, her judgement should probably not be taken as a reference point; with all due respect for the situation, this girl made decidedly vulgar videos, pasted her name all over the place, and told a hive of trolls that "any fame is ok with her."  Third, her family went on national TV with their real names in the midst of a cry that their privacy had been violated.  I don't want to introduce critical bias to the article, or this discussion, but the facts to me suggest that trying to act as a protector in this case is a complete lost cause.  In short, WP:BLP is the one and only thing I think we have an obligation to concern ourselves with. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In borderline cases where the subject wishes deletion, the subject's wishes are generally considered a tipping !vote to delete. (in this case it would probably be the subject or her parents.) Active Banana (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think i agree with you. But more to the point, i think that this thread should be copied onto the talk page of the article, as its important to the discussions occurring there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * comment if this is kept, it needs to be on permanent lockdown and high oversite. We are dealing with threats to a living person who is a minor. Active Banana (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source stating that actual threats were made and verified by police? BTW, these discussions need to go to talk page. - OldManNeptune (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If they werent then we are totally dealing with a non-event and the article needs to be deleted. Active Banana (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete in the quickest time possible. Extremely egregious BLP attack.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the name of the guy whose article was deleted by Jimbo because even though it was a well-documented internet meme, the meme was an attack on him because of his looks? "First do not harm."  This little girl is eleven years old, for God's sake.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is bad, see Category:Suicides_due_to_cyber-bullying. Not sure though if this article contributes to her trouble. Should be deleted if subject of the article asks it to be deleted. Biophys (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Egregious BLP1E, NOTNEWS... do we have WP:STEAMINGPILEOFSHIT yet? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to respond to someone who so casually dismisses my attempt at writing a difficult article as a "steaming pile of shit," but here goes: The article isn't a biography of "Jessi Slaughter," and it was deliberately written with WP:BLP1E concerns in mind. It discusses the broader impact of the cyberbullying case and its aftermath in the context of other notable groups and figures including 4chan and Parry Aftab. How is there a violation of the biographies of living persons policy when the article has never tried to be a biography? What is it about this cyberbullying case that warrants deletion when other articles of similar scope and topic exist? It's certainly not the availability of reliable, mainstream sources. Ingersollian (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to ALL content about living people no matter where it appears. This article cannot exist without content about living MINOR. Active Banana (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:BLP1E? "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." That is exactly how this article has been handled from the very beginning. Ingersollian (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. My statement was in response to your "The article isn't a biography" as if that exempted it from BLP criteria. Active Banana (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, you replied to an argument I never made while ignoring every point I actually wrote. Ingersollian (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." This is exactly the type of article we have been trying to outgrow as a project. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is covered by WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story this week, no one will remember it in a few. AniMate 03:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. As animate has said, this will disappear from peoples minds in a few weeks.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook BLP1E. Re-create if notability persists beyond this event. I wouldn't wager too much on it though, and I don't trust your predictions to the contrary. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a "textbook" WP:BLP1E: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." And that's exactly how this article was written from the very beginning. The sheer thoughtlessness with which these recent delete voters are treating the pains that have been taken in writing this article in compliance with WP:BLP1E is deeply unappreciated. Ingersollian (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the carelessness of your dismissal is no less unappreciated. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This story has persisted for what, 50 hours? As I said, if this becomes a lasting significant event, an article might be justified. As it is, it's nothing but news (NOTNEWS, recall), with the weight of BLP against it. Cool Hand Luke 04:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, five days (News Limited, Australia, July 19, 2010) is not fifty hours. In fact, I intentionally waited several days after the initial coverage began to create the article. I didn't write the article until after the Good Morning America interview aired. I took the GMA interview as obviously breaking beyond the level of previous coverage. Ingersollian (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Kill it with fire, already - what's wrong with you people? WP:BLP1E and WP: NOTNEWS, just for starters. It's a BLP nightmare and relates to the inane behavior of a child, who's clearly out of control. This does not need to haunt her adolescence, especially after she grows up a bit and realizes what an idiot she's been - A l is o n ❤ 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the sake of humanity and the reasons given above. Really... Dendlai (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: BTW, YouTube has taken the videos down. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alison, Cool Hand Luke etc. While the author has made a good faith, conscientious effort to write a balanced article, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid newspaper and there's nothing of lasting notability in this. Just because we can write about something, that doesn't mean we always should. EyeSerene talk 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as always, arguments must be made by policy. At least this is slightly more grounded in valid deletion arguments than the Donny whatshisname one was. I agree it probably is not notable, however I do not concur with the BLP argument. The reasoning of "this will haunt her adolesence" is totally irrelevant - it is not been made up, any source that Wikipedia is quoting from will remain in existence, cache'd by Google and the like. The information is out there, Wikipedia is merely colating it. She's already done it. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tabloid newspapers claim to be .. tabloid newspapers. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Thus, we should aim to be a little better than that. Furthermore, as our Googlejuice™ is way stronger than anyone else's, for whatever reasons, we also have the responsibility for being one of the most visible hits. We're not here to exacerbate the problem, quite frankly, nor give credence to gutter journalism. And yes, the BLP argument is more than valid here - A l is o n  ❤ 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: What Alison said above. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete An article on the bullying of an 11 year old girl would be great in a Page Three newspaper, but the current article has zero encyclopedic content (apart from "girl acted her age without any thought; girl got bullied; news outlets exploited the situation"), and has no place here. Glorifying 4chan idiots is not part of Wikipedia's role. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alison. This isn't worthy of anything past a tabloid newspaper mention, it's a BLP nightmare, and entirely WP:NOTNEWS. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete – this is what happens when users blindly follow WP:V and WP:RS without respect to any common sense or anything else. –MuZemike 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does an 11 year old girl throwing a tantrum (and /b/ being /b/) really need to be documented in an encyclopedia? -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 11:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this title and Jessi Slaughter, and don't merge the contents elsewhere, per BLP. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this tabloid bullshit. Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Per Cool Hand Luke, Allison and the others. Please let's use some common sense with a dose of common decency.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as classic examples of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Currently. I do appreciate that the creator delayed the article creation and took some care with it, but we don't need an article until it is clear that there is significant, longer term impact. This is an encyclopedia not a gossipy thrill-mill. --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to embarrass 11-year old girls for the rest of their lives. 86.145.163.208 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per CHL, SV, Alison, Malleus et al.  Begoon  talk  12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As explained above, it's a simple BLP1E. There's nothing beyond "event→aftermath" to the story. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Tony Fox, CHL, Alison, et al. We just don't need this. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:DECENCY. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - decency. Ug, I cant believe this is even being debated. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2010 (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.