Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Davis


 * 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 WP:SNOW. Given the sensitivities concerned, the so-far unanimous vote to delete, and the consensus that this article may be already in breach of the BLP policy, it seems prudent to close this and delete the article immediately. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Suicide of Katelyn Davis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic WP:BIO1E with horrendous sourcing (dailymail, youtube etc) and BLP issues (charges of sexual abuse etc). No reliably-sourced indication that the sad event had greater societal ramifications (such as change in some law, or practice) that would make it notable enough and amenable to encyclopedic coverage. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as being the only socially responsible action possible. The person did not in any way meet notability guidelines, was under 13 years old (noting the presumption of privacy provided by COPPA, which specifically addresses online use of such information, and thus might fail under US law. No continuing coverage either.  BLP1E also applies. Not even noting the fact that such "reportage" is barred by many countries, including the EU. Collect (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E, a minor child, BLP violations regarding the family, don't want to encourage copycats, potential legal issues, and need I go on? Just let this poor soul rest without having all the worst parts of her life memorialized here as though that's all she was.~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 02:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The main reason is the soft sourcing, not concerns about copycats etc. Any subject can be covered on Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED, but this article has always struggled to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. The case became notable because Davis livestreamed the suicide, but this in itself does not warrant an entire article. The claim by Collect that "such reportage is barred by many countries, including the EU" is dubious because British newspapers reported the incident: Mirror Mail Sun. Invoking COPPA is also dubious because the US news media is not stupid and would have checked this before reporting on the case. There is no obvious COPPA violation in reporting the suicide according to reliable news coverage, eg here in The Independent, which is a good British newspaper regularly used as a source on Wikipedia. There has been a lot of armchair lawyering over this, but the WP:GNG issue from the overall sourcing is the real problem.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ianmacm: the sources do not satisfactorily assert notability, and the fact that more reliable sources have not taken up the story even though they (certainly legally, probably ethically) could, should speak volumes. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 08:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Two reasons: 1) A simple retitling does not absolve the article of WP:BLP1E problems, and there's evident reason that this person was particularly notable outside of a few minor news articles about her suicide. 2) The sourcing is really dreadful.  Once all of the crap sources are removed, there's not enough to hang an article on.  -- Jayron 32 11:25, 19 September 2018 (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.