Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Ante Šutalo


 * 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 delete. Per consensus and WP:NOTNEWS. Less Unless (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Suicide of Ante Šutalo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

To the person who created this article, I'm sorry for your loss. I assume you know this boy. However, there are thousands of suicides in Australia per year, and I don't see how this one is notable. Many suicides receive a passing mention in online news websites. Steelkamp (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Shows significant amount of coverage about the boy who committed suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.111.56 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)  WP:SOCKSTRIKE of !vote by logged-out IP of sockblocked article creator. --Finngall talk  21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: There are more than 3 news sources for this and seemed to get sufficient press coverage to warrant an article. While there isn't much WP:DEPTH and is mostly local, it is WP:DIVERSE Tautomers (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is an awful tragedy, but as a recent news story there is no evidence yet that it will have lasting coverage in reliable sources. There appears to be no particular reason to assume that such coverage will eventuate. The sources also look mainly to be specialist news publications, and some may not be reliable. As such, the notability criteria are not met at present. If sustained coverage develops, an article can be recreated. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G5 as a new article created by a sock of a blocked user. See Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary. --Finngall talk  20:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It received coverage in a wide range of publications, enough to barely meet notability. I don't think it qualifying for G5 as an IP editor contributed substantially to it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I find the above rationales for keeping the article persuasive, particularly there being sufficient coverage and it providing WP:DIVERSE. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here. For articles about happenings, there needs to be something more than just "coverage" to be notable. There needs to be something unique, something that makes it not just run-of-the-mill. Cyberbullying related suicides are, unfortunately, run-of-the-mill. Nothing about this seems to be at all unique that would justify having a Wikipedia page. Mlb96 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The IP to which you refer was the logged-out IP of the article creator and had received a short block as such, and several other IPs in this range have been part of the sockfarm (see the relevant SPI).  Therefore it should not be considered as an independent entity for G5 purposes.  --Finngall talk  18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE.-KH-1 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2021 (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.