Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd


 * 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 No consensus. This debate has turned in to the classic argument of whether something in the news and seemingly quite important now will continue to be noteworthy in the future. From a strict policy reading this article should be deleted, but consensus doesn't exist for that. Since no one here is psychic, reevaluate it in a month or so. Prodego talk  18:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD, the article fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BIO1E there is no indication that this tragic event goes beyond a local event. The article is nothing more than a rehash of news reports without any encyclopedic analysis. Mt king  (edits)  23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is on the events leading up to the event as well as the event itself. Note, the article is on an event and not a biography of the person. Given it's relevance and as the story unfolds I believe the article should stay in place unless deemed not a suicide, at which point, I may revise my opinion as then it way better fall under the criteria stated. Piandcompany (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, there is no indication either here or in the article as to why this event is of encyclopedic note, your comment "relevance and as the story unfolds" makes my point, this is a tragic news story and nothing more at this time. Mt  king  (edits)  01:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel we need to look over this argument in the coming week to see how the page develops. Piandcompany (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Non-notable. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article should stay as above, sources increasing all the time, far far too early to PROD/AFD.  Alex J Fox   (Talk)(Contribs) 23:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per exactly what has been stated by Piandcompany. Lots of sources can be found on the subject (which I will be adding). -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  23:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep' I started the article after inspecting the three other such articles at Wikipedia:
 * Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer
 * Suicide of Ryan Halligan
 * Suicide of Tyler Clementi
 * Such cases tend to give rise to prevention campaigns, criminal charges, and possibly changes in the law. I suggest doing what we can to expand this. Then it will Google to the top of the pile, drawing further edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep, WP is not a newspaper and any claim to prevention campaigns or changes in the law is pure speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL) at this time. Mt  king  (edits)  01:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Her suicide has attracted a massive amount of coverage, literally hundreds of articles have been written about it. Instead of taking the time to start up a discussion to delete this article, perhaps being productive and improving the article would be a better use of time. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Her suicide is awareness to cyber-bullying and putting an end to it, it has extensive media coverage, and the similar articles are posted so to not include this post would be ridiculous." 109.144.154.134 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepIn reviewing WP:PEOPLE guidelines, I found this guideline in favor of keeping a biographical sketch of a person: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."


 * This person is 'of interest' as a case study for Wikipedia articles that are currently written about cyber-bulling, youth suicide, and cyber-stalking legislation in Canada. It deserves attention because it appears that it may lead to new or tougher legislation against cyber-bullying. As such, this is a "first draft of history."


 * Whether the article should be rewritten is another matter. This reads more like a first draft of a secondary-school student essay. (I apologize if the author feels this is an insult; none is intended. More editing and rewriting will improve it. It should be shortened.)


 * I agree that the suicide of a young person is not in itself worthy of a standalone article in an encyclopedia. However, incidents like these which involve social media can be significant, culturally as well as historically. Further, this incident apparently has been initiated as a consequence of these very same technological innovations, producing a case study that demonstrates how social media has dramatically impacted the way in which humans communicate -- and the cultural, legal, and perhaps technological reactions thereto. That in itself is a noteworthy topic.


 * Throughout history similar seemingly 'minor' incidents have served as important drivers of legislative and cultural change. This may be one such incident in Canada. Certainly watching the story unfold and modifying the article if or as needed will be necessary. But I think it worthy of keeping for now. Bancheromedia (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A notable abstract: Pediatricians are in a unique position to help families understand these sites and to encourage healthy use and urge parents to monitor for potential problems with cyberbullying, “Facebook depression,” sexting, and exposure to inappropriate content.From the American Academy of Pediatrics: Clinical Report: The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson, and Council on Communications and Media. Pediatrics 2011; 127:4 800-804.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/800.short Bancheromedia (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can? May? These words sound dangerously like you might be peering into your crystal ball... -Joey- (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Since being increasingly covered in international media, this article satisfies WP:N in my opinion. The "encyclopedic analysis" can and more than likely will improve over time. DrNegative (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per all the above, specifically WP:INDEPTH. I would write a long rambling passage, but it's already been written.  Theo polisme  13:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Teenagers commit suicide every year all over the world. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a place to post the list of every suicide story that has ever taken place. There is no significance whatsoever for having a Wikipedia article for the suicide of Amanda Todd; no cultural, historical, legislative, etc. impact beyond tweets and facebook groups. She is not the first teenager in Canada to commit suicide over bullying. This is a perfect example of how insignificant events should not have articles. Just because it is a trending news story does not mean that overly-emotional people can create a Wikipedia memorial. Warsilver (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a high-profile case -- the highest of its kind in Canada I think. Other such cases in the US have resulted in the rise of numerous organizations like the It Gets Better Project, Anti-bullying legislation such as The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, changes to numerous existing laws, United States v. Lori Drew, several major broadcasts including a PBS Frontline piece, indictments, criminal charges, convictions, fines, and prison sentences.


 * Also, the police are still looking for the blackmailer in this case, who is likely an adult, and if so, a pedophile.


 * Considering that there will likely be consequences stemming from this, it passes WP:PERSISTENCE, and as the notability of this event is likely to endure for quite some time, it easily passes WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. And because this is about the suicide and events surrounding it, and not specifically about the person, it also passes WP:BIO1E. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I get that people love to throw the term "pedophile" around loosely to refer to adult sexual attraction to any minor under the age of consent or age of majority; even the Pedophilia article notes that, but pedophilia, as the Pedophilia article also notes, is technically the sexual preference for prepubescent children. If the perp is a legal adult above 19, the police are looking for an even bigger scumbag than if he's just an underage teenager, but they technically aren't looking for a pedophile (at least if only basing his sexual attraction on this girl who was either in late puberty or finished with puberty, as most 15-year-old girls are). I want him caught and imprisoned, even if he's her age or otherwise underage. 115.111.7.248 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep IMO she is notable for her strong communication skills in creating a video about an important topical issue, for a youth to create such a video is significant and extraordinary, and given the culmination in her violent death this persons life has captured the public imagination in a manner likely to trigger global law changes and awareness raising about paedophiles if the suspicions aired about her main bully are true. I think facebook will lobby strongly to have the whole incident written out of history as they are highly ineffectual at stopping abusive posters and pages and won't want the debate for commercial reasons. The girls life and death are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.216 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Amanda's suicide is getting significant media coverage in both Canada and around the world. A full police investigation is also underway now with calls for new laws, etc., so it will likely continue to be in the news for now.Michael5046 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Removed per No personal attacks policy -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKman74 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I fully agree per the nomination. An article is not appropriate for a single event such as suicide due to cyber bullying. If an article was made for everyone who committed suicide or was a victim of Cyber-bullying Wikipedia would just be a Obituary. At most this would seem more appropriate to be at Wikinews. I am willing to change my opinion if people suggest arguments against my reasoning. If the article does in fact increase in appropriation for Wikipedia I will change. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The writing style of this entry is very poor and not encyclopedic. It reads like a "Yahoo Answers" entry and not a serious encyclopedia entry. It is also extremely biased. 50.131.41.41 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I redacted a grossly insulting comment from this person's vote. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Her suicide is gaining media attention, it is also the basis of an anti-bullying campaign. Whilst lots of people do commit suicide, lots of young children also go missing and Miss McCann has her own page too.adamlonsdale (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing separates her suicide from that of any other depressed teenager and while it's gaining speed, it's only because of the fact she killed herself. She's not notable and does not warrant an article in the least. Giants27 ( T  |  C )  17:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Several !votes here reference WP:ONEEVENT, but it doesn't actually seem applicable to this article. WP:ONEEVENT only states that separate articles should not be made about people who are only notable for one event, that the article should be about the event itself instead.  It doesn't say an article shouldn't be written about an event when that's the only thing a person is known for, just that a separate article shouldn't be written about the person involved.  ("When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.")  If this were an article about Amanda Todd herself, rather than about her suicide, then yes, WP:ONEEVENT would apply.  But since this article is about the event (the article is called "Suicide of Amanda Todd", not "Amanda Todd"), that guideline isn't relevant here.  Of course, there's still the open question of whether the event itself is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but that's a separate issue.  WP:ONEEVENT has nothing to do with it, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Smeazel (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clearly notable as indicated by the plethora of sources reporting about it. This is not run of the mill news. Coverage is indeed worldwide: here is an Italian newspaper report on the story, for example. The "encyclopedic analysis" bit is nonsense: the article is a "rehash" of news sources? Well, it's exactly what it should be then, for WP:ORIG and WP:SYN. We are not supposed to make stuff up. In any case, if an article is not perfect, it means it has to be edited, not deleted. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The case surrounding this girl is similar to the Phoebe Prince and Megan Meier cases. Let`s keep it here, because these teens are a warning for the others of what bullying can do to us. They are all messengers in their own way. Of course, lots of other teens commit suicide every year in the whole wide world and they do not get coverage in media, but despite this we need to admit that there are certain cases, which emerge from the other cases and this is one of them. So keep it where it is. Lassoboy (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: While Amanda Todd may not have been notable in life, her suicide is, and as such, she is now (sadly) notable in death. As teens and young adults lives have become tightly entangled with social media technology such that privacy is becoming antiquated, it has become critically important to raise awareness and information in this area.  --Thoric (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it .... as this is an invaluable education for parents and teens alike. 03:50, 14 October 2012 User:Tom2day — Tom2day (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * STRONG KEEP as we all learn more about what has happened, we should all be willing to learn from this experience, there may be 1 simple clue that helps another parent, or Teen from going down the same road.Livewyer (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Livewyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - You have kept these articles- Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Tyler Clementi. It seems that Amanda Todd is disqualified because she was Canadian "nothing interesting ever happens up there" - I say keep 24.108.61.172 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The importance of this article is not necessarily in recording the event itself, but the affect is it is having broadly on discussions surrounding the growing issue of teenage suicide and bullying via social networks. Whilst it is certainly not the first time such events have taken place, it is resulting in an unprecedented, and very much global debate - I'm writing this from Melbourne, Australia, where at least a dozen people I know are also involved in similar discussions. This case is quickly becoming a household discussion (between users of social networking, at least), and I would not be surprised if Ms Todd became something of a Kitty Genovese in the context of cyber-bullying.


 * Keep. WP:BIO1E states that a separate article is appropriate "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". The event is significant; whether or not it deserves to be, given the fact that teenagers commit suicide every day all over the world and this is no different, is irrelevant - the fact is that the event has been covered by many major news organisations worldwide (see the references in the article). Seeing as the event is her suicide, she obviously plays a large role within it. Thus BIO1E does not apply. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, while the individual is not notable the event is clearly notable. It has been covered by numerous sources and many of these are in the article. meshach (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. - The fact is many people suicide each year. Wikipidia shouldnt delete this page because this is something people should be able to learn. People need this kind of information to be INFORMED to them. This is something hundreds of thousands people care about and Wikipiedia should keep it for the sake of a better world. People will be able to learn from this. There is a high percentage of chance that a bully will become a friend by reading this article. 1 bully can make a huge change. The question is not should we delete this article. The question is should we save many lives and unwanted situations from children and teens lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.56.123 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - for reasons above, plus this article is properly referenced and the media coverage on this topic is extensive. There are similar articles on suicides, this is a notable one. -- Jethro   B  00:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep while I think it's obvious at this point why the article should be kept, I'm adding my vote. Her suicide is now prompting governments in Canada to reassess or initiate anti-bullying laws. This is a significant event. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - An event that has caught coverage all around the world, and if the event is promting governments to make change, there's your "significance". I'll also note, that people shouldn't argue that suicide isn't notable... "happens all the time" etc. because obviously the media has picked up on it, we are in no position to just disregard material. The article can and most likely will be reworked over a few weeks. -- MST ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 02:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete this page, this girl has had no significant impact on the world and therefore doesn't deserve her on wikipedia page. I mean, everyone dies every day, so why is she so special? 75.90.125.189 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Articles may start out as a stub or need improvement, but this can be done for the Amanda Todd suicide article. Hopefully this information will help prevent sexting, and especially suicide. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP - This is a significant event that I'm sure will be remembered for a long time to come. Kids today do Terry Fox runs, and one day they will be doing Amanda Todd runs no doubt because her Mom has already started a fund for anti-bullying. ~ CarrieLeeKlein — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieLeeKlein (talk • contribs) 03:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Many kids commit suicide and nothing separates her suicide from that of any other depressed teenager. She is not notable and does meet Wikipedia standards for an article 204.101.190.178 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:INDEPTH. Of obvious national importance and interest, and "encyclopedic analysis" can be developed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I can see nothing in the 'Reasons for deletion' section of the Wikipedia Deletion policy that mitigates removing this article. I strongly disagree that "there is no indication that this tragic event goes beyond a local event". Given the enormous reaction and trending on social media sites - particularly Facebook and Twitter - it is obvious that this story is being followed globally. It is not fair to assume that an encyclopedic value be attached right now since the story is still unfolding. More details are emerging by the day and this article should be given time to develop naturally and accurately. In addition, some further analysis of the overbearing issues would be appropriate. Finally, there is considerable mis-information in posts and web sites which have given rise to a great deal of polarised viewpoints. I feel it is important to capture as many facts as possible in order to accurately explain these events and the fate of this young girl. Paulid 11:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Remove the article. It's creating drama on the internet and many people commit suicide each year whilst making a drama on youtube first. This just encourages others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.254.69 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This incident is one of its kind, and people should know about it. It might be better to make it an article about Amanda Todd herself, rather than about her suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.243.23 (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP The article gives facts only. Relevant topic.MiMo-2012 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — MiMo-2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong delete - This is using Wikipedia as a memorial website. Her death is tragic, but so are so many others. It is way too early to say this is a significant event. At this point the media is using this for pageviews and individuals as a bandwagon to jump on. When actual province-wide legislation gets passed, then this event can be redirected to that article. Also, missing white woman syndrome. --mboverload @ 14:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - This is a non issue. Just because an event was a tragedy, doesn't mean that it warrants a wikipedia page. The child made a horrible decision.


 * STRONG KEEP - Article information is factual and any tragedy in which a young person takes their own life should be notable, especially when they post videos on Youtube before they commit suicide. 23 editor (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the many well-reasoned arguments above. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Everything that I would want to say has been said. It has attracted literally thousands of people and the sadness goes far beyond a local community. Being said, although many events similar happen this has by far touched the most people.It has given many others hope and the fact of the video she made was what took it over the top. The article only mentions relevant points and information. I believe this should NOT BE DELETED! Danielj27052705 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing notable outside of this only event. If, perchance, her suicide starts something like It Gets Better Project, then of course, a mention of the event, and sources in the appropriate section of that article would be warranted. 74.77.201.49 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and the fact that suicide is a day-to-day occurrence worldwide.  Fiossa  17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per WP:INDEPTH. The amount of coverage, particularly in Canadaa, guarantees Macleans and others will be doing feature stories on it. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Come on, guys...This has been in the news (on a rather limited basis) for about 2 days now; that doesn't mean it's notable. I read about things like this every day, and I'm willing to bet that we won't even be hearing about it a week or two from now. If this event ends up prompting a large campaign like Rachel's Challenge or a change in legislation, then this may meet WP:Notability, but, for now, it's simply a local event that's been the topic of one or two copypastas. Get rid of it now. Rockhead126 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Poorly elaborated reasons for deletion. Article well in line with WP:INDEPTH and notability criteria. -- Asterion talk 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT. A very tragic case, but few references outside Canada. From a UK perspective the story is mentioned by the Daily Mirror and Sky News, but I've just checked the BBC and they have nothing. It's certainly too early for this to appear as it only happened two days ago. Maybe if this becomes notable at a later time we can restore the article, but at this precise moment it shouldn't be here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be internationally notable, of course – notability within one country is sufficient. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It helps with something like this though if sources such as the BBC are picking up the story. The incident may go on to become a defining moment in legal history (for example if it leads to anti-bullying legislation), but it's too early to say at this stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Paul. Someone said that Suicide of Megan Meier must also be deleted, if this is. If I recall correctly, that led to a large court case and, later on, some new legislation. For now, this article is simply not notable enough. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Also, this article demonstrates why we need better guidelines for dealing with new pages concerning the deaths of individuals. They crop up with alarming regularity, and two days on from when the incident happened, we're unlikely to have a clear picture of the reasons why these events occurred. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Not notable at all. For the sake of consistency on Wikipedia this article has no basis being an article of encyclopedic importance. 173.243.36.225 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 173.243.36.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete for the reasons stated in the proposal. --DannyDaWriter (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, wide coverage. – Connormah (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable at all for an encyclopedia. ALSO, I SHOULD ADD, the sheer number of keeps should be given very little weight as it represents a lot of supporters of the girl. The overall arguments for keep along WP is very limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.43.66 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 173.243.43.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may say that a sheer number of keeps should be given very little weight as it represents a lot of supporters of the girl but sheer number of deletes may also be a lot of "haters" of the girl. -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  21:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Weight of numbers does not count for much in this debate anyway – what matters is the strength of the argument, and 173.243, you haven't provided an argument based in any policy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have. Search above for "This is a high-profile case -- the highest of its kind" Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you – I was addressing the IP above, 173.243.43.66. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Delete this page and you may as well pack up Wikipedia and go home. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a major event in the topic of online (and general) bullying. Schools and parents are most likely going to use this event as an example, and Wikipedia needs to have the events information. Dominiktesla (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Subject of international news and debate. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I live in the middle of nowhere and know about this. It's massive. Doesn't matter if it's the discovery of a sentient species or if someone's pet bunny went missing. If communication channels are filled with it, it's notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.83.190 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 190.55.83.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Move I think deleting this entirely would infringe freedom of speech, but it's in the wrong location. I believe it should be moved to a different Wiki. Is there a social tragedies Wiki or something? It kind of marks a huge movement on the internet, whether you agree with it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TehGamerXeo (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, moving to another Wiki would not be possible due to the fact that we would not redirect to a non-Wikimedia project thus moving would result in a delete on Wikipedia. -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious Delete. This discussion about this page has really already happened.  When the Thomas Ball self immolation was deleted from wikipedia, despite its significance, it set the precedent for the removal of this type of article. I&#39;d rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I would wager good money most of the keep votes on this discussion page are based on emotional feelings towards this incident rather than evaluation of notability here, and wikipedia is not and never has been the place for building memorials... -Joey- (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Been in the news. Independent sources exist. Notability of the person may not established, but the notability of the event, on the other hand, is firmly established. At very least this is merge material. If it is a "rehash of news" and not "encyclopedic analysis", we have a pesky policy that requires us to leave the "analysis" at the door, last I checked. It leads to unfortunate stylistic choices. Need to wait until some more analysis-minded folks elsewhere wake up. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for some perspective: First, I'll say that the link I am posting is censored so don't revert this post because this a serious comment worthy of discussion.
 * - If you see here: [ redacted per policy -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC) ] You will see that there are reports of her doing way more than the media are currently reporting. It's sad she died and it's sad she was bullied, [ redacted per policy --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC) ]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell has that got to do with anything? One thing this discussion doesn't need is your judgement on the subject's behaviour, or any misguided belief that it affects the article's notability, and another thing we don't need is two "delete" comments from you. You have already made your delete point above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh yes. The only shred of notibility this thing could have is how she was an innocent victim. She wasn't. She did it again and again. Her bad choices brought on the verbal and cyber mistreatment. This is not a notable situation nor is a teen suicide. [ redacted per policy -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC) ] This is not notable. So hate to break it to you bud but that's relevant here. 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your failure to understand anything about this process, or of what constitutes notability, is of no interest to me. But you still don't get to make two delete comments. I think everyone else here can see the value of your comments for themselves. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A teen posting naked pics of her on numerous occasions and having promiscuous sex is not notable. Neither is being made fun of and insulted on the internet. A teen suicide isn't notable too. The only possible claim for notability is that she was innocent. She obviously wasn't. 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uch can you please post such comments on some other website, not here? -- Jethro  B  01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Being an innocent victim or not does not change the notability of the article. All content in the article is written to what the references say. There is no possible way that you can be saying that this wasn't suicide because it was. -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to the notability of the article whether she did it 1 time or a million times. (she also doesn't say in the video that she only did it once). It also doesn't matter to the notability of the article whether she was a good person or not. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean it isn't notable.Michael5046 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as said above: the moral compass of the person involved in the event isn't relevant, we're talking about the notability of the even itself. Also, since your link could be considered as child pornography (and is anyway irrelevant in this discussion), I removed it. 88.138.207.159 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - When everyone here agrees that things should not have got this bad...It is logical to keep this page and amend it to chronicle preventive measures that schools and government agencies implement. Since removing is easy I agree with Alex J Fox "far far too early to PROD/AFD" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.86.101 (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 117.230.86.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete - The only reason this has had any publicity is a youtube video and social media going viral, there's nothing significant about the case what so ever, and the article itself is extremely biased and and hould be deleted/re-written on that basis alone. It gleans over the distribution of her own underage sexual pictures and other important information. At this point in time, this article is nothing more than a glorified obituary
 * Keep - while my understanding of WP:NOTNEWS indicates that this article ought to be deleted, there are a number of precedents on Wikipedia where the consensus was the opposite. For consistency, keep. Rank-one map (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * VERY STRONG KEEP.....Everyone should be made aware of what bullying can lead too. This girl gave her life, lets not make it be in vain...the word about what happened to her needs to be out there! ....s.burris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.106.207 (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 97.113.106.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or Merge. Many teenagers commit suicide because of bullies, and we can't make an article for each one of them. Delete or put it in an article about bullying as a notable case. Not that I think it's notable, I don't know how this is different from other cases.--  Krystaleen  04:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does happen all the time and most do not have a Wikipedia article. But most do not receive significant coverage from reliable sources.  This is the qualification that makes a subject satisfy WP:N and have an article.  This subject clearly qualifies. meshach (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

--- Kira1998freedom  —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP...okay, i am going to view and comment on a point of view as a student. Such topics are often chose by teachers and schools as a current affair and exam topics, thus students often need to research on this topic....as students, we all know, when it comes to research, wikipedia is always the 1st website we come to. Thus, keeping this article will at least be beneficial to students.


 * KEEP This article is not, as some have suggested, merely a biography of a person momentarily in the news. Rather it describes a suicide due to bullying that is of particular significance because it has become very widely known and has triggered a great deal of news coverage and debate here in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. The case is also notable because it is a relatively pure case of cyber-bullying, in the sense that it seems that it was not simply a use of social media by acquaintances of the victim. Furthermore, the article does not appear to fall into any of the four cases discussed in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. By bringing together information from many sources, going into more detail than a newspaper typically does, and giving a broad overview of the topic rather than focussing on the latest development, it performs a function that newspaper articles rarely perform. One useful function of Wikipedia is that of providing a means of learning in more depth about, and obtaining a more coherent account of, a current event. One often reads a news item that doesn't give enough background or is too short to be clear. This is not a traditional function of encyclopaedias, but that is because traditional encyclopaedias were so slow to appear. It seems to me that it is a valid encyclopaedic function even if it is one that has only recently become possible because of advances in technology.Bill (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Right now, most of the news coverage is of (1) the police investigation into Ms. Todd's suicide, (2) Premier Clark's interview, and (3) in-Wikipedia coverage of the YouTube video. I'm a little worried about how much of the article is about Wikipedian's own interpretation of the YouTube video (WP:PRIMARY!), but -- if this story remains in the headlines -- more thorough journalistic and police investigations into this horrible event will generate enough secondary sources for a solid Wikipedia article to be built up around it. If not, it'll probably languish as a second rate article, which would be a real pity. -- Gaurav (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no reason to be holding an obvious teenage suicide on an ENCYCLOPEDIA page. It will never be deemed as foul play because she clearly took her own life. Why waste the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.238.18 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 180.131.238.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This has been in the news for 3 days. It seems a bit early to be deciding whether this meets WP:EVENT or will fade into the background. →Σ <font color="#036">σ <font color="#036">ς . (Sigma) 07:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article should be kept- the valid reason being that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to inquisitive readers. As Wikipedia provides a compiled page for this particular topic, this article has to kept. A justified reason is that the suicide of Amanda Todd is a famous event, so even though I respect the opinion of people who say that the page has to be deleted because she is not the only person to commit suicide because of cyber-bullying, she did make it to the international television. She has also been gaining a lot of controversy on the social networking websites, so there is no doubt of her being noted since this event is known by over a million people it deserves a rightful place on Wikipedia. Whether or not Amanda Todd has done the right or wrong thing has nothing to do with this article. Wikipedia has to keep her article alive, and not because it "sets an example to others," but merely because it's famous. The article is an event which is known to like 1/4th the internet, and any famous event, no matter who or what it's about has to be in an encyclopedia. 07:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magakriv (talk • contribs)


 * Strong Delete This page and incident are attracting too much wrong attention, and some have even said that it encourages suicide due to publicity. Truth is that many people commit suicide under these circumstances,, but this one just happened to be picked up by the media. Not notable per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER . 96.245.204.218 (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 96.245.204.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete and merge. A normal case of suicide. where is the relevance and the notability?--Louisbeta (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article meets the primary guidelines: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are multiple Australian newspaper websites carrying stories relating to subject. Mjpotter (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Poorly elaborated reasons for deletion. Article well in line with WP:INDEPTH and notability criteria. --Pinnecco (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep No reason for deletions, The article meets guildlines. Information are realiable and correct, it is rare cases of suicide of cyberbullying. It should deserve attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyhung (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - One off events like this aren't relevant enough to be remembered in this way. One girl who didn't have the intelligence to not expose herself on the internet, then not tell her parents when she was blackmailed, then not go to the police when she was attacked by all those people, then didn't have the intelligence to not publicly kill herself doesn't need to be remembered. She needs to be forgotten lest anyone else thinks to follow her 'example'. I agree with Warsilver, this isn't a place for bleeding hearts to set up memorial pages about attention whores. They have MySpace for the bleeding hearts and Facebook for the attention whores. JamesM123 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's freaking harsh, man. Speaking ill of this girl like that, just as bad as her bullies are doing even now that she's dead. I see nothing to indicate that the girl was an "attention whore." Like you stated, she didn't even seek help in a way that could have brought her greater attention...other than the YouTube video. Wanting someone to help, that kind of attention, doesn't qualify her as an attention whore. 37.72.10.253 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. She was 15 right? A kid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While I often cite WP:NOTNEWS in my delete votes, it is premature to apply that here. It is possible (likely, in my opinion) that this will have lasting reverberations unlike many other murder/suicide articles. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Regardless the groundswell of popularity Amanda Todd received after her death, the issue of online harassment and sexual exploitation of children is real. Would recommend that the article be further developed to include details that lead to her suicide particularly the treatment she received and the issues she faced. To quote her mother, "Amanda’s moment of indiscretion was not unusual for someone her age: Sexting and using webcams to share sexual photos is a growing trend among children, some so young they are still in grade school." This is true, and the article should weigh heavy on this because it helps to demonstrate the social impact and to help bring awareness to how this story unfolded. From all accounts I've read, she was a normal, healthy girl who was interested in becoming a cheerleader until she was cyber-stalked and fell apart emotionally as a result. If the decision to delete is passed, in the very least, merge this story with others similar in scope such as Megan_Meier. Honestly though, these two stories are similar enough in nature, this article should be left intact just as Megan's was.Tragicfame (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: it is a true story, notable enough, many news being quoted -Elijahhee (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: While the reasons for keeping it may not be obvious now, at some point they will be. As someone else noted, "this will have lasting reverberations unlike many other...articles" in this encyclopedia.  When I think of an encyclopedia (in an ideal world), I think of a source that would give me quick access to important and salient information on a topic.  In the case of cyber-bullying, access to the names (and stories) of prominent victims would be just the sort of information that a researcher would need. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum to my previous comment asking Wikipedia to keep this article: I found two articles that in my mind address the need to keep this young girls story. Teen’s death prompts father of a bullying victim to speak out 1)‘Gang mentality’ at school resists adminstration’s efforts to effect change http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Teen+death+prompts+father+bullying+victim+speak/7389263/story.html 2) B.C. teen's suicide nets hundreds of tips to policeMounties say about two dozen investigators working on the case CBC News  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/13/bc-amanda-todd-suicide-charges.html
 * When I was young, the encyclopedias to which I had access changed my life -- they opened my eyes and mind to the realities of the world. Why would Wikipedia want to narrow one's view of the world, when it holds such power to expand it?  Please retain this girl's Wikipedia page.  Do we want a sterile, narrow compendium of information that we call an encyclopedia... or do we want an encyclopedia with the power to change the world?  It's the latter, I would contend. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well put. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I fail to see how this event is of much encyclopaedic value. It will very likely be forgotten by most people in no time and it doesn't seem like it would be of much importance for anyone in the future. After all Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and not a generic news site that needs a filler or a lurid front page story. 217.86.185.221 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I accept that other suicides do not get Wikipedia articles, but most other suicides don't get this sort of media attention. Simple fact is, this one HAS recieved the media attention, therefore it has become a notable event, worthy of a well sourced, Wikipedia article. 90.213.151.194 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (speedy) given the high level of media coverage. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: The fact that the unfortunate suicide of Amanda Todd is what many claim to be of only regional interest is irrelevant. This event has sparked legislation in the Canadian government which, if eventually passed into law of some sort, would be of encyclopaedic value.  Many times, it is BECAUSE of occurances like this, not in spite of them, that social and/or legal changes that affect a nation come about, and if such arises from this tragedy, then it is certainly as worthy to hold a place as the story of Adam Walsh is.  It would be historically noteworthy for future generations to be able to understand the specifics of why such legislation came to be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.83.200 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "and if such arises from this tragedy" --> "if" 217.86.185.221 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP very important to know about the reasons and show the blind society that mobbing is not just a "hard teasing" between youngsters these days. This article should be a way to open everyone's eyes that mobbing destroys more than meets the eye --Saviour1981 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the purpose nor the job of wikipedia. 217.86.185.221 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Memorial websites or appeals for political action (in this case against cyber bullying) don't qualify for Wikipedia pages. --Memarshall (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi arbitrary section break

 * Keep Like it or not it's now part of history, covered in major news. Delete this and then you'll have to delete articles like the Suicide of Megan Meier. Anynobody(?) 22:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate was included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration on the 15:21, 15th October. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - With the article in it's current state, it's more a biased obituary. This needs to be re-written in an objective manner. Currently it's nothing more than a viral case of something that happens on a regular basis. should anything significant stem from the event, it should then warrant having an article. Until then, this page is nothing more than a glorified obituary. It might sound heartless, but from an objective point of view, the event isn't significant enough, beyond going (slightly) viral on the internet. If we had pages for every tragic event that went viral on the internet, wikipedia would be an on line obituary, as stated by someone above. Some English Guy  Talk To Me 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does seem to be reliably sourced and well above GNG requirements. Insomesia (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Mocctur (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referring back to the nomination, this has gone beyond just being "a local event" and has received significant worldwide coverage, as well as being mentioned in parliament, becoming a catalyst for a possible government study on bullying.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's reported in numerous 3rd party sources, and has gained international recognition. ScienceApe (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not the place for tales of schoolyard conflict, not notable 129.81.211.115 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's made international news and is influencing parliamentary matters in Canada. She's become a person of interest. As others have said before, this article isn't much different from other Suicide of's. Most of the negatives seem to be brushing it off as a "local story" and "inconsequential suicides," clearly this is no longer the case. Celynn (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - if I counted correctly, there's about 65 keep votes and about 25 delete votes. #s certainly aren't consensus, but I think we definitely do have consensus for a keep here, similar to other "suicide of" articles. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  02:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Not notable. Not even vaguely. Many people die, many people commit suicide, a fair few get into the news but that doesn't by any means make them notable enough to need wikipedia articles. Give it a year and the only evidence of this absurdly commonplace event will be the 4chan crew cracking the odd inside joke about her. -Joey- (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguments both for and against notability are crystal-balling the likelihood that this will spur significant, long-lasting anti-bullying efforts. We don't know yet. "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable", and given the worldwide attention currently being given to the event (and I'd argue the question is whether the event, not the person, is notable) for the past 5 days would seem to warrant avoiding a rush to deletion. I don't see any other serious arguments against notability. An unscientific, but numeric and thus perhaps useful gauge regarding the current attention is that a google search for Amanda Todd Suicide returns 104,000,000 hits, and a google search for Bully returns 127,000,000 hits. Thus, currently 82% of Bully-related hits are Amanda Todd Suicide-related hits (unless there are any Amanda Todd Suicide hits which fail to mention Bully or Bullying, which I would suggest is highly doubtful). Gmporr (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Not notable and not worth mentioning especially on Wikipedia. If we are to keep this article, then Wikipedia would have create article for every single person who has committed suicide in the world. Most are known for their work or contribution to something. She has not done anything notable, she only committed which is not worth writing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the place for information and knowledge; this is the news and not educational. Many people die, many people commit suicide, where are their stories and articles? (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample media coverage for this event. No doubt it'll be used as a case example when the media talks about this sort of thing in the future.  Nothing gained by deleting it.  This article has gotten 760,034 views in the past three days since its been created.    D r e a m Focus  07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event meets WP:DIVERSE --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS p  b  p  13:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:ONEEVENT, and not likely to be repeated. But seriously, this is a sort-of variation of missing white woman syndrome, the media's endless fascination with pretty white girls that have Bad Things(tm) happen to them, whether it is being spanked by a father, gone missing in Aruba, or off themselves with a bleach. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc correctly points out that the media has some racial bias and might not have covered a more poignant death of a black girl. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot correct that racial bias.  We can't say we ought to have an article on events we don't have reliable sources about, and we can't give up covering articles just because we think the reporters "should have chosen different things to cover".  I also think that highlighting such events seems ethically dubious - it might glorify suicide or make it work as a kind of powerful tool to get people punished, thereby increasing future suicides.  But that again is not our call; we're here to report the facts, not change them.  Personally I think the real take home lesson here is that if people would follow the example of New York and Ontario and recognize women's equal constitutional right to toplessness, then the photo wouldn't be shameful and the girl wouldn't have died.  But I can't put that argument in the article just because I feel like it, and nobody should be allowed to take stuff out or delete it because of their bias either. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can engage in such editorial discretion if it is to the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole though, i.e. an WP:IAR defense. Are we a better, more whole encyclopedia by including an article about a girl who died, just because the Nancy Graces of the drive-by media have made such a stinking shit-fit over this story?  Or are we better by not including what is at it's core just a simple, tragic death? Tarc (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR is about making an encyclopedia, not deleting one! If the Nancy Graces of the world have taken a run-of-the-mill story and turned it into a juggernaut, well fine then, document that!  How news becomes news is absolutely worthy of serious academic inquiry.  Same as the Million Dollar Homepage, which is nothing at all on its own. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not news. People commit suicide with a depressing regularity. However if the premier's comments about using this to open up changes to legislation on cyber-bullying turn out to be more than empty words, it will be worth re-visiting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. "NOTNEWS" is invariably abused, and this time is no different.  I see a whole bunch of serious sources here that aren't going away.  I'd happily vote to Keep this story even if it were about a girl who committed suicide during the earliest days of daguerreotype photography, given the same kinds of sources, even if no law ever was passed based on it.  "BIO1E" is also misused here, since the article is about the event, not the person. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are exactly right noting that Biography-One Event is misapplied here. The question at hand should be about the lasting notability of the event, not a technical objection on a matter of biography. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Under ordinary circumstances, I am loathe to keep articles on news stories, but this case has certainly touched a major nerve within Canada, and beyond. Anonymous is already involved, and politicians across Canada are making calls for changes to anti-bullying statutes as a direct result of Todd's suicide. , .    This case is already far different than a random murder with no lasting consequences (aside from the obvious). Resolute 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; Since the involvement of Anonymous, her story has become one of international interest since it's tied to greater issues of online vigilantism; as well the "outed" person is possibly guilty of a number of serious criminal offences. As an incident alone I would say this does not warrant an article, but like the death of Mohamed_Bouazizi is has become a touchstone and and a story of great importance. --Tsylos (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - international news coverage, major police investigation into the long chain of events preceding her death (criminal harrassment, blackmail, distribution of child pornography, etc), plus international hacktivist group Anonymous has investigated too. This is not like other suicides, and coverage will continue as investigations are completed.  Sadly, this will be a great case study for modern media, privacy, and social issues  ColtsScore (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; This is an international story of lasting importance. Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is funny that many of those who vote Delete only use the argument "many people commit suicide." But many people are also killed or go missing every day, yet a small number of them get extensive media coverage (yes, usually they are pretty white girls). But the fact remains that this suicide did get extensive media coverage from major news sources worldwide, and just because you think it shouldn't be news doesn't change the facts.Michael5046 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close as No Consensus Without Prejudice To Renomination in 60 Days: And save us all a lot of time.  We can discuss again when furor dies down and be more rational about it.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see about 74 Keep and 34 Delete. Somehow I came up with four more deletes on a count than Jethro in his "note to closing administrator" above, but I still see that as a strong consensus to Keep.  It would disrespect 74 volunteers to go back and say their votes didn't really matter - we should be done here. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disrespecting anyone. I'm respecting people's time - we don't need a single more vote; the average AfD gets about 4 votes.  And the outcome is not a a vote anyway, so we're told.  If it was 74 delete and 34 keep I wouldn't suggest it be deleted, because that wouldn't be a consensus either.  Like Balloon Boy, if you wait a few months and see if it really was notable, no one complains on the 2nd AfD (if one even occurs).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I like the idea of respecting people's time by closing this as a Keep. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP -  My opinion is that this is only one incidence of a very important topic on Bullying, but this is an illustration of a very typical episode, and so should be kept for educational purposes. Also, bullying is a hot topic with anthropologists and other social scientists alike, considering its study in the context of gender, class, race, etc.  So, I think this should be linked to a discussion such as that.   Finally (Am I asking for too much? First time doing this), This page should be linked somehow to a discussion on Kleinman's Illness Narratives, as Amanda has told her story on how she developed depression from peer abuse. 75.94.26.142 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The question is whether this is an example failing WP:NOTNEWS or whether the event is of lasting historical or sociological importance. While the jury is necessarily out due to recentism, I am inclined to thing this is probably a case of the latter rather than the former. There certainly should be no scramble to delete until the smoke clears. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is a place for general knowledge, not news. Even-though this story has reached a large amount of media attention does not grant it encyclopedic importance. Wikipedia would become filled with useless articles if it documented every major news headline. -- Sleegi  [✆Talk]  19:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNENCYC, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:USELESS may be good reads for you. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This case has every ear mark for becoming a landmark event that changes anti-bullying laws around the world. It is apparent to me that this has grown to noteworthy status. Crazysane (T/C\D) 19:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Wikipedia has grown to be known as a place to get detailed, straightforward information. Although it is a public-edited site, there is a certain level of trust associated with the site.  Having recently heard of the Amanda Todd incident, I found google searches to reveal very little about what actually happened.  As usual when looking for information on a topic, my go-to place is Wikipedia, where I was able to read the history of the issue.  It has been argued that there is little encyclopedic analysis of the issue, and that it reads more like a news article, and to this I say, perhaps so, but Wikipedia is a place to gain information, and even if it's reported information on a very current event, it may be more relevant and accurate than various short online news clips.  I say keep it, because relevant, clear information compiled on events has a practical use for those who search for info on these events.  Though it is an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia should recognize the adaptation of its function as a source for information on current-history news events, not simply discussions of long-past issues or academic topics. FranzPattison (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2012 (PDT)
 * Keep - this is international news now - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very STRONG KEEPThis case will change laws in child pornography, child stalking, blackmailing a child, child sexual exploitation and child annoyance by an adult. Amanda Todd may not have found the help she needed but her case may well save/protect other children. TalkAbout (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An article can be written about the law if you wish, providing it has significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (or change focus to the law) This should be at wikinews, not here per WP:NOT. If the law is notable then Amanda Todd can be mentioned in connection with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  VERY STRONG KEEP  - I cite the case of Amber Hagerman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Hagerman where the public was moved by her tragic death and thus laws were changed and thus the Amber Alert national system was born. As stated above this case has wide implications within various areas of the law and thus meets the criteria for a 'notable' article. Once the laws are passed, I am sure her article can then be linked to said laws, or changes in current laws or newly introduced laws. Regards TalkAbout (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't vote twice, I've striked your extra vote IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, didn't mean to vote twice. I haven't participated in a deletion discussion in years. Regards. TalkAbout (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Providing informative, well-sourced articles about notable topics are part of Wikipedia's mandate. This nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  If you don't like this article or this topic, the answer is simple: find another article to edit.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Important topic, important person, touching story.  Worthwhile for wikipedia to exist, so that more people find their way to watch the youtube video.  Forget providing all the info fit to print in an encyclopedia;  eliminate everthing else and just reduce Wikipedia to providing this article.  (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but...) -- do  ncr  am  00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if the event turns out to be notable. As it currently stands, it isn't. Normally, I would be happy to let this sort of thing slide a while until notability is gained/not, but I can see this article causing more trouble than it's worth if we do so. 2birds1stone (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The event might not meet notablity criteria right now, but there is reasonable probability it might do so in a few days or weeks. It is wasted energy to delete the article now, then have to re-create it in a few days time. Please note that 'just another teenager commiting sucicide' is not an appropriate description of the events, either factually or in terms of politeness and respectfulness to persons concerned. -- 04:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The event is notable. The article is well-referenced. ~ Editor182 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I live in another continent and this story was on the frontpage of the main national news website. Being interested in the tragic subject of gender violence and stalking, I went looking for more background information, I checked Wikipedia and I was glad to find this entry. For whatever reasons, it has attained notability on a much wider scope than stated in some pro-deletion comments. --MauroVan (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is well-sourced. Portillo (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This might be a historical (because worldwide reported) cyberbullying event :( --Dadu (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia should have an article on this topic. Notable, especially in Canada. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep First basically because of the weakness of the "delete" !votes based on "other people commit suicide all the time". We do not determine notability on rareness of the event, it is based on third party coverage. And there is a huge amount of third party coverage, every single news outlet of any type of media format is talking about this event. It is notable and has coverage for an article. I am saddened by the delete comments and some of the crassness towards suicide. Just when you think that this event is making a difference in the world, one comes to Wikipedia and notices that yes, there are dicks left in the world who are untouched by this moving event.Worldjustice (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep While I am usually against keep news like articles. This story has gone far beyond just a news story. It has hit a major nerve here in Canada. Has had pretty major repercussions already and its likely to only snowball. This clearly isn't a case of notnews. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not BLP1E, since this is an article about the event, not a biography of the person. So the question is whether the event was notable, and there seem to be adequate coverage, including indications of lasting repercussions (e.g. discussions of the implications of cyberbullying), that it is.  Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per all keep arguments above. It might not have been clear when the early delete votes were cast, but this has attracted massive worldwide coverage, and is of considerable encyclopedic importance due to its cultural impact. Unless one wants to help haters and bullys, there's nothing gained by destroying this article. God bless Amanda. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow keep? are you kidding? There's been 40 odd delete votes, that's not snowing. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the above, several of the delete statements are now obviously counter factual ("local coverage only" etc...). Others have little relation to policy, the degree of coverage in independent reliable sources determines notability, not delete voters irrelevant personal analyses of how frequently an event occurs.  AfDs are not decided by vote counting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the keep votes are not policy based. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing my vote to a weak keep. We already have articles on other individuals' suicides, so it would be hypocritical to delete this one considering it garnered so much media attention. -  TALL e N  talk 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having the flexibility to change your view, if only other delete voters would, now their rationale no longer applies due to the massive expansion of coverage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. I am actually disturbed that some people want to delete this, especially since afaik the cyberbully has not been found yet. D is for... (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Vitor  Mazuco  Talk! 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that in general teen suicides reported in the media should not be made into articles, even when they are reported in the media. However, this case has attracted continuing international coverage, with over 30,000 Google news hits.  Much of this coverage is about the reaction to the suicide, including debate in the Canadian parliament and the involvement of "Anonymous".  As one columnist explained, while noting that other teens have killed themselves in similar circumstances, "in her death by suicide Amanda Todd, a 15-year-old from B.C., has become an international symbol of a problem as pervasive as the internet itself."  The response to this AfD is a good indication of the high profile this case has.  TFD (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea to delete a well researched article on a high-profile story is a complete madness, unfortunately, prevailing last years in Wikipedia. Such "deletionist" attitudes of many editors (mostly, ones who contribute very little) makes Wikipedia a cesspool of censorship and bigotry, often less informative as years go. Tiphareth (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering that everyone and their grandmother knows who she is, and it's very notable, it should be kept. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reason of all articles of this category: Category:Victims of cyber-bullying--AeroPsico (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Supporting the general "keep" sentiment that this is a widely-reported and high-profile case with far-reaching consequences on not only societal attitudes towards bullying, but potentially government policy. The B.C. Premier speaking out on it should be notability enough. Maybe then there would be a case for deletion if it fizzles out quickly, but considering the sheer impact of the event, it's not likely going away any time soon. The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's subject has achieved widespread notability, appearing in news in multiple countries as well as becoming well-known on the Internet.  The event behind the article is significant and relevant to the topics of bullying, electronic harassment, Internet crime and teen suicide.  I think the article's subject is important and should be remembered to help prevent the same. AUN4 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (call to close)
I didn't number this break because hopefully there isn't a need. Though I called to delete, as this sort of article is a product of the lowest common denominator of drive-by media swill, it doesn't have a prayer of actually being deleted given the piling on above. Can we just call this one early and move on? Tarc (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. This should be closed as an obvious Keep now.  There is no need for further discussion. -- do  ncr  am  23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, some admin do it, please. I seriously considered NAC closing it myself, but that would probably induce drama.  Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident is a good precedent though I would call it keep for now.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A NAC would have been quickly overturned since this is not an unambiguous AfD. I'm not sure how "no consensus" sets a good precedent. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, close friend. Remember that all non-article work is overhead to our project; this discussion is an extreme undue amount of overhead.  In a few months, people will be calm and can rationally assess whether this article makes sense.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would close it but I'm not an admin... -- Rockstone  talk to me!   00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Close A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Close per Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2
Keep Amanda Todd was a good person who had a hard life. Maybe the article should be on her whole life, though, not just focusing on her recent death. -Wahula- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahula (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Week Keep The topic is still in media coverage, if it settles down over time then delete it, but let it stay for the time being till people are searching for it and while key developments are still happening. We don't know where this will lead to, it's too early to call anything. Achshar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TENYEAR. This event just happened a couple days ago, and the only sources that exist are half-baked news reports. There are, of course, no sources that could testify to the lasting significance of this event. When, in the future, such sources arise, the article can be recreated, but as for now, there is no adequate sourcing to establish notability in the grand scheme of things. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, couldn't have put it better myself, DV. Completely agree. Forteblast (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (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.