Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a procedural nomination following the request from an IP user on the article's talk page, reproduced verbatim below (including date and timestamped signature). As nominator please do not accept my nomination as agreeing with the motion. I will express my own opinion below.

BEGINS "What's the point of this article? She's not only victim of cyber-bullying nor only girl who killed herself. She wasn't even famous, just regular teenager. So, every teenager who suicided deserves an article here? I have razor on my desk, I can cut my throat for decent article.

I wanted to nominate this article for AFD, but article's semi protected, so can anybody do this for me?

And for all of you, please, consider if Amanda, her suicide, stupidity and weakness deserve an article on Wikipedia, encyclopaedia.

Sincerely, 83.28.130.30 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)" ENDS

Procedurally nominated by Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC) on behalf of the IP editor.


 * Strong Keep as properly sourced, notable and verifiable article. I'm very much hoping the outcome will be a snowball speedy keep. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - If anything, rename to 'reaction to the suicide of Amanda Todd' or something.  Royal Mate1  22:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Enduring in that it resulted in a parliamentary motion and an ongoing federal police investigation, the outcomes of which have yet to be determined. Also, a black mark on Anonymous, showing the hazards of false doxing. It is also notable as the first, large scale incident of its kind in Canada, and likely one of the first to be publicized on a massive, global scale, as evidenced by the fact that it this article got far more page views than Death of Osama bin Laden and double that of Hurricane Sandy. (Todd, Laden, Sandy) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep per the simple fact that the first AFD reached no consensus and was closed with the intent that the notability of the article would be re-evaluated in a month or so not a mere 16 days later.  Alex J Fox   (Talk)(Contribs) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep This never should have even been out forward at this time. Nothing had changed since the first nomination and the IPs reasoning for it should have been dismissed for presenting nothing new. Let alone its offensive tone. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above, nothing mind-blowing has been presented/occurred since the first nomination — is there a procedural close for this? Almost like a WP:TOOSOON, just for AfDs? — Theo polisme  23:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Anna Frosediak. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. It was heavily covered in the news for two weeks or so but that does not justify the creation of an article. The reaction on Twitter and Facebook also does not justify this. Todd is not the first teenager to commit suicide as the result of cyberbullying. The notability hasn't endured for very long, it's not a hot topic anymore. This suicide is not more significant than any other suicide. We shouldn't create an article for every suicide. teammathi (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above assertion that the notability hadn't endured is so far simply incorrect. A google search shows newspapers articles referencing the suicide within the last 24 hours. Also Canadian provincial and federal government are currently debating ways of dealing with cyber bullying primarily due to the Todd case. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Why are we going through this again... It's a notable event. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the closure was reverted after this diff with the authority of the original closer . The full rationale is discussed at length here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With the "authority of the original closer"? Where on earth do you see that? I have no authority over your actions on Wikipedia--the reopening of this AfD was entirely on your own accord, and I have no responsibility —authority — for it. — Theo polisme  22:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated "You're more than welcome to reopen it. I, however, shall not, for reasons stated above. (see also)" in this diff. I see your words as abundantly clear. Please feel free to ask for administrative views on this. We can use the word 'consent' if you prefer. The sense remains the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arguments in the nomination are weak, largely a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but to the extent that they include the idea that there is insufficient sourcing, or insufficient enduring interest within reliable sources, I don't think that the page really supports that characterization. In the discussion above, WP:ONEEVENT is also cited, but it does not really apply here because that's a part of WP:BIO, whereas the page is about the event of the suicide, not about the person. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep While it clear that the nominator simply doesn't like the article, the fact remains that Todd's suicide received significant coverage across multiple news sources, sufficent to pass the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Canuck 89 (chat with me)  01:04, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep Per above agreeing consensus, the article and the event also is very notable. Mediran  talk 11:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep I think it's a bit too soon to renominate this article for deletion. Wait a bit longer (maybe the full month that the closure of the first AfD recommended) and try again. Legoktm (talk) 13:31, 6 November 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.