Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi


 * 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   keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW etc. No way we will get a consensus to delete given what we have so far, especially now that the article has been moved to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Cf. the closure of this AfD. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyler clementi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Earlier versions of this article have been deleted on WP:BIO1E grounds. However the incident has gained further press interest and with the pending prosecutions on 'invasion of privacy' grounds, it seems likely that the requirement of "significant impact" may be addressable. Raising for discussion as the issue is not clear cut. Fæ (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying it could maybe work if renamed to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Although I might lean more toward a merge with Suicide among LGBT youth or a merge to Cyber-bullying.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For now I'm going to cautiously move to Weak keep due to the move fitting my suggestion. (Unless his loved ones or family object to this article) I'm still open to merge, but that doesn't seem like a popular option. Also I'd say if in a year from now it's clear this wasn't significant then it could be re-argued.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment NB there is a better-capitalized article at Tyler Clementi covering the same subject. Don't know what the procedure for handling cases like this would be. (I'd ordinarily convert the miscapitalized version to a redirect, but since this discussion's underway I thought it might prove confusing.) Should we just add the AfD tag to both and discuss the subject's notability here? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Tyler Clementi also exists; if the articles are kept, they should be merged and moved to Tyler Clementi.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect I have migrated the sources to the correctly titled primary article and changed the original (i.e. created first) into a redirect. There is no apparent loss of information, hopefully. Fæ (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to work; thanks Fæ and GW. Currently neutral on the deletion discussion while I mug up on BIO1E policy and precedent. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Earlier speedy-deleted versions were two-line unsourced stubs. The article as it presently stands is a very different case.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree; AfD discussions discuss the suitability of an article about a given subject, not the current state of that article. If an article is unsourced, find sources. If it's a stub, expand it. This discussion is primarily whether or not WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E means that this article should be deleted; notability for the time being is clearly established by sources, and even when it was an unsourced stub, sources could have been easily found (and anyone commenting on an AfD on an unsourced article is meant to make some effort to find and discuss the available sources anyway)  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. You nominated the version I deleted for a speedy on BLP1E grounds (the text amounted to "Can we have an article, please?". Fae replaced the tag that was removed by the OP on the same grounds before I made the deletion. Nakon deleted a slightly more substantive stub. Newyorkbrad deleted a third stub.   Acroterion  (talk)  15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I missed the word "speedy" when I read that. This discussion is about whether it should be deleted rather than whether it was valid to have speedily deleted it previously (which would have been more appropriate for the DRV thread), so I assumed you meant that the situation would be different at AfD and that the state of the article at that time should influence a deletion discussion, which it shouldn't.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. The state of an article and the content of an article are two different things; we obviously agreed yesterday that the content was inappropriate and speediable, as it was just a placeholder. None of this has much to do with the present discussion, so carry on.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one will say I am very displeased as a user of Wikipedia to have seen the article autodeleted so many times before it got to its recent state. We have to do a better job at making sure things dont get autodeleted before discussion starts. I think the first tenent of Wikipedia is to do what's best for the encyclopedia and to debate and work out "the rules" later, not just simply delete stuff because you don't think it fits at that point in time. Teamwork, people. No one-person decisions.12.177.104.148 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion, tyler clementi and Tyler Clementi have been merged, with the latter added here, and this discussion is now of the merged whole under one umbrella. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, based on media coverage: Fox News, ABC News, NBC News, BBC Radio, People Magazine, Chicago Tribune, MTV, Daily Mail, Barcelona Reporter, etc. I should also note that the notability in this case involves the circumstances and the politics of the story. Kingturtle (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In many of the other similar suicides, no charges were ever made. Why this story is so notable is that charges have been filed. Kingturtle (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Kingturtle. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: the event's notability isn't in question; there's no denying that the event received very good coverage in reliable sources. However, it was just that: a single event, and the individual isn't notable enough for inclusion based solely on the coverage of their suicide. Moreover, at this point the story itself was very recent and there's no evidence of enduring notability for the story (it's been in the news a whopping 2 days so far and it may or may not continue to be covered as a significant LGBT afterwards, but at the moment we don't know that), so per WP:NOTNEWS neither the individual nor the event should be included at this time.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument isn't that it's not notable; it clearly is. My argument is that there's no evidence of enduring notability, which is what distinguishes between a news story suitable for wikinews, and an event suitable for encyclopaedic coverage on wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS is separate from notability and is policy. Simply repeating that the event is notable does nothing to counteract the fact that the story very clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS until enduring notability can be established. Wikipedia is not a news site, that's what wikinews is for. Notability is not the only condition for inclusion.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I understand that. Are you then saying that we should never cover events until enduring notability can be shown? That quote above, from WP:EVENT, doesn't agree with such a claim.  And EVENT is a guideline clarifying NOTNEWS.  In my opinion the question is if it seems likely this will have enduring notability.  And at the moment the event clearly is headed in that direction IMO.  The subject of this AfD is less clear to me (see below).  My reading of NOTNEWS is that we are to avoid routine coverage, not nation-wide front page stuff.  Hobit (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is yet no indication that this event will act as a "precedent" or "catalyst" for further events: indeed, so far it's largely being spoken of as "yet another example" of discrimination against LGBT populations leading to suicide. If it becomes clear later that the event has provoked further notable events or had continued coverage in the media over a longer period of time, then an article about the event (but not the individual) should be created at that time. In the meantime, however, wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a news site.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. He's no Matthew Shepard yet. Will he be at some point, perhaps, but that's WP:CRYSTAL.  Grsz 11  15:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little catalysis:, etc., -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  23:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep I think the event is clearly notable. The person is less clear at this time.  It's clearly a WP:BIO1E and I'm not yet certain the bio will rise above those standards, though as Kingturtle points out we are well on our way. That said, it's at least a close call and I'd prefer to keep for now and revisit in a month or so. Hobit (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep now that the article has been renamed to the event. Hobit (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's currently impossible to tell how much long-term notability this event has. Other instances of suicide following bullying have not achieved lasting importance, but this one may be different because of the nature of the events and because it particularly highlights the issue of young LGB people being bullied. My question is, how long do we wait and see? When is 'enduring notability' established? WP:NOTNEWS only really says to avoid 'routine news reporting' and that breaking news should not be 'emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information'. It's not clear to me how this necessarily precludes an article on a subject that is currently notable and will almost certainly prompt further debate about bullying, cyber-bullying and treatment of LGB youth. --Korruski (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was wondering yesterday if there should be a "September 2010 bullying suicides" (or equivalent) article. A significant amount of press is being garnered by the four suicides this month (Asher Brown, Billy Lucas, Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh).  It's said that Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project is in response to Billy Lucas, for example (and that was two suicides ago). - BalthCat (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This would probably a bit artificial as a merge solution. If any case is cited many times (in the long term) in national press or quality publications as grounds for lobbying, changes in the law and legal precedent or just plain newsworthy for pundits and opinion makers then I suggest they meet the GNG and probably ought to have their own article. In counterpoint, I would argue against lists of those bullied but not notable enough for a free standing article as such listings fail the WP:NLIST guidelines. Fæ (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fæ that this isn't a good merge solution unless the coverage turns (and it hasn't yet, so we shouldn't yet) to consolidated coverage of those cases. However, if we did decide to make such a merge, we'd also want to look at possible inclusion of Justin Aaberg (13, MN), Cody J. Barker (17, WI), and Raymond Chase (19, RI). --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the resulting article would BE a list. These suicides (six, now) have resulted in two at least two new projects from notable people and organisations.  Yes, perhaps a little time is needed, but articles are already referring to "Fifth suicide..." or "Another..." etc.  I'm not sure combining them is necessarily artificial, as I think their timeframe is garnering real attention. Of course, who knows, maybe it will continue on into October... - BalthCat (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. As sad as this event is and as widely covered as it was, it is only one event that so far has not demonstrated any lasting effect, it may in the future but this is not what Wikipedia is WP:CBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - on the basis that the article easily meets all the criteria of WP:GNG. I understand the guidelines of BIO1E and NOTNEWS, however these are not intended to supersede all other considerations. The article title could be changed to reflect the event, as suggested above, which would include the prosecutions involved and the associated legal case. This event is not simply the suicide but the article encompasses what the sources describe as a notable "hate crime" (as per CNN coverage) and invasion of privacy legal case. The deletion guidelines do not encourage deletion when there is a real prospect of improvement in the near future (which is normally interpreted as several days rather than several months). Fæ (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is an exceptional case, high profile, lots of media coverage, in an important category. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. News coverage does not mean the notability standard is met. Lots of things are noted, but pass, thus not notable. Also, this man killed himself because his personal life was made public, it seems disrespectful that we do the same. If the event leads to prosecutions and even a new law about Internet bullying, then there should be an article about the event, but not the man. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  15:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been moved to the event of his death, which has received much coverage and appears it will have staying power, even sparking debate about new laws to govern behavior on the Internet. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- There are similar pages for suicides of other victims of cyber-bullying, (see: Suicide_of_Megan_Meier, Suicide_of_Ryan_Halligan, Death_of_Phoebe_Prince), who are not otherwise notable beyond the circumstances of their deaths. CharwinBrussell (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Suicide of Tyler Clementi and Keep- for now anyway. This is the usual problem with breaking news stories in that its really hard to tell the difference between "in the news" and "falls under notnews". The only way we'll be able to tell the difference is after a month or two has passed. Oh, and troutslap the article creators for creating articles about the person and not the event. We've been at this wikipedia thing long enough that we should know better, Cover the event, not the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cyber-bullying. This got press coverage, but Wikipedia is not a summary of things that were in the news each news cycle. The individual was not notable prior to his death, so WP:109PAPERS, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Edison (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – as per earlier comments by Kingturtle,Fæ, Paul (User:Lpgeffen), and because the person in question has become notable not only because of the events leading to his death, but also his personality has come to the fore in major debates across media and university campuses about bullying of those who are perceived different from a presumed majority. Malljaja (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The scope of the initial coverage, together with the already extensive followups, indicate that this is not a case of transient newsworthiness. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is extremely important to help outsiders learn of the taunting and bullying faced by students simply because of their orientation. 12.177.104.148 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — 12.177.104.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep, and by keep I mean merge the two articles, move to "Suicide of Tyler...", add a redirect from "Tyler...", and keep all that. The argument for deletion boils down to real concerns about newsy, one-eventy non-lasting coverage. Normally that's a "delete, then wait and see", but the broad nature of the coverage leaves me leaning keep, with a nod to "let's look again in a month" as per Hobit.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)  (Edited to note that this merge has already been accomplished.) --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)  See also: WP:BDP.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to "Suicide of...", per the reasons already given by others above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to expand on my specific reasons for keeping. Looking at the applicable policies and guidelines, WP:NOTNEWS says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is a different kind of news than that, something far less routine. WP:EFFECT identifies pages like Murder of Adam Walsh and Matthew Shepard that pass notability and are similar to this one. The sourcing so far passes WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. WP:SENSATION clearly does not apply here. It seems to me that the decision here hinges on WP:BREAKING, which, on the one hand, suggests that it might have been more prudent to wait a few days before creating the page, but that's water under the bridge now. On the other hand, it also points out that AfDs like this one should not be started within the first few days after the event. And, that, for me, is the bottom line. We should keep the page, with no prejudice against a second AfD in a few months. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (background) As the nominator I can clarify the background here which may not be obvious. The article was speedy deleted twice (see log), before someone (not me) created a version with a lower case surname. It so happens that I had previously requested speedy delete on an early unsourced stub but after examining the new article (flagged to me as potential vandalism on IGLOO) I tidied up a few of the key sources and discussed the rationale for not speedy deleting again with the previously deleting admin (see diff). I then not only added several quality sources to the article but raised this deletion discussion as we were already beyond re-speedying the article. I raised an AfD discussion as this would clarify the situation with regard to the balance of encyclopaedic notability versus possible recent-ism. Personally I do not see AfDs as a negative process but as a means of gaining consensus for the merits of having a free-standing article. My expectation was that this was not clear cut (as stated in the nomination) and so would be likely to take several days to reach a conclusion. However, if the end result is a deletion, then I would expect the article to be userfied for further improvement. There appears to be a criticism that raising the AfD was not a prudent thing to do, however I beleive my actions fall well within the WP:BEFORE guidelines. You are welcome to discuss further on my talk page if you disagree and feel I misunderstand the guidelines. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fæ, please let me say here, where everyone can see it, that I apologize to you for making my comment sound like I was finding fault with you for starting the AfD. It's not what I was thinking, and I was mistaken to make it sound that way. What I meant was not that we shouldn't conduct the AfD, but rather, that the reasons I gave were reasons to not delete now, but instead, to keep while leaving open the possibility of a later AfD if future developments indicate that the event did not have lasting significance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to the event per the various reasons above. WP:NOTNEWS lists plenty of examples of trivial news that we don't cover: this doesn't fit by any stretch of the imagination. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename per all above. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Question of rename should be discussed elsewhere. The only thing to be decided here is whether the content, history and talk page of this article are to be kept or deleted at this point in time. For me that's a no-brainer, the material is clearly encylopedic, and at the very worst will be included in another article with an appropriate redirect. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Wait and See. Not a big fan of keeping so soon after the event, but it looks like the keep effort is snowballing. Might as well move the article title to one that is more appropriate. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note for clarity: the page has been moved to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said elsewhere, the event satisfies WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE based on coverage in several well-known news publications; I think it satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE by virtue of the fact that large numbers of the LGBT community outside the US have now heard about the incident; and WP:EFFECT seems like it's likely to apply in time, as this is causing calls for anti-bullying measures to be taken (c.f. The Ellen DeGeneres Message), and Matthew Shepard is even listed as an example there. This, of course, remains to be seen. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable story. Tom my! 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep from one of the people urging deletion: "not notable; it clearly is. My argument is that there's no evidence of enduring notability". This is confusing newsworthiness and encyclopediaworthiness; the very names show this: to be worth covering in the news, something has to be important here and now--one goes to a news site to read what is newly notable--new things that have just become important this day or this week. An encyclopedia  encompasses whatever has been notable at any previous point. Personally, I think the concept of "enduring notability" in our coverage of news events is ridiculous, and the sooner we get away from it the better: what people want to see when the look at a comprehensive encyclopedia is, to put it bluntly, everything that ever was thought important.    DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your own views on enduring notability, it is policy, and this is not the correct place to challenge the validity of the WP:NOT policy. WP:EVERYTHING, as well, is a "classic" poor rationale for use in an AfD.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:EVENT specifically allows us to have events where enduring notability is not yet established... Hobit (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Providing there's fairly strong indication that enduring notability will be established WP:EVENT may be a fairly convincing argument for keep (I'm not a big fan of trying to predict this per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it is looking fairly likely, I'll admit). I was simply pointing out that challenging an established policy and making a WP:EVERYTHING keep rationale, is a rather less convincing argument.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * delete not warranted a whole article by himself (and there are others like this, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesnt jsutify it). An addition on the circumstances can go on 2010 in LGBT rights if its notable as a whole, by itself its not.Several people kill themselves over many issues (and ITN says there were 4 this week/month in america alone), they dotn warrant placement.
 * Out of sensitivity to the people who loved this person, perhaps we can avoid invoking the "other crap exists" formulation of that guideline's title. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also becasue it has media coverage today is more of a concern to ITN, not the broader encyclopaedia. WP:NOTNEWS would suggest wikinews is better than wikipedia for this.(Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC));


 * Delete WP:BIO1E WP:NOTNEWS - as clear a case as I've seen. If history shows it becomes a notable topic, fine; until then, it simply does not belong (as a specific topic). Mentions in other articles, for sure. Merge some if appropriate, to teen suicides, or whatever the N subject may be.  Chzz  ► 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per extensive coverage of the event now, and the response section of the article, which makes it clear that the event will/already has caused lasting effects, which IMO negates the NOTNEWS and EVENT arguments. C628 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. WereWolf (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Some people are, tragically, notable for the circumstances surrounding their deaths: Emmett Till, Kitty Genovese, Matthew Shepard and this young man. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As cruel as it is to say, I really don't think a year from now many will remember this, and that is the definition of notability. Notability is not temporary, and more specifically, this is exactly why WP:BLP1E exists. Yes, there is significant coverage now. That's because it's a major news event, not a notable event. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "it's a major news event, not a notable event." That is your opinion. I know I personally feel that the event is notable. If we followed your logic, why wouldn't we delete Matthew Shepard's article before the MS act had been passed? 12.177.104.148 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP, btw. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  03:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Shirik. In response to Joe Decker, as has been explained previously now, BLP also applies to the recently dead out of consideration for their families. And regarding Matthew Shepard, remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or indeed "other stuff existed early") is not a valid reason for keeping.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with you about BLP, as per my reading of WP:BDP, which you don't mention but which I believe is the controlling consensus and policy on this point. A second point that got lost in my too-terse response is that, as the article is now renamed to "Suicide of...", the article is guided by event, not biography notability, which additionally limits the application of BLP notability requirements to this article. I would, however, agree that protections against specific content (not articles, but dubious statements, etc.) based on BLP still exist as per BDP. And, indeed, I completely agree with you that the Matthew Shepard argument is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Sad and tragic indeed but not notable, If some law gets passed because of him maybe we can recreate it but right now, no —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs)
 * Delete We really should have a mechanism for talking about whether to create these kinds of articles before they are created. Anyway, I agree with Shirik. Distinguishing BLP1E because the subject is (as of a few days ago) no longer alive is semantics. BLP is about ethical treatment of living persons. We should extend the same treatment to the families of the recently deceased. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - this is a teachable moment and if someone can learn from this tragedy and think twice before bullying, than wikipedia has done it's job. Why not have an article that can teach us about hate toward any person? So we should delete Matthew Shepard's article, too? What the heck? 12.177.104.148 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what wikipedia is here for: wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The BLP guidance does apply in any article where living people are discussed, there is a very large notice on the top of the article talk page to that effect. However that a recently deceased person has living relatives is not a rationale to delete an article, only a reason to improve it. Fæ (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Jayme (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (& wait) This event is too recent to determine if it is "notable." For now, this article should be kept and updated as news unfolds. Once this moves from current event to history, then it is easier to determine if this is notable enough for its own article or should be a footnote in another or if, sadly, it's not sufficiently notable for anyone to remember. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" and if these things aren't remembered in an encyclopedia where will they be remembered? Vroo (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. WP:EVENT doesn't supply us with a good mechanism for reconciling the requirement that "an event must have a lasting effect" with the proviso "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I strongly suspect that this event will have a lasting effect (to acknowledge my biases, I bloody hope it does and that this poor man's death spurs change that will protect others), but I do not have a crystal ball and do not think that my hunch is reason enough to ignore the requirement for evidence of lasting effect. No prejudice to recreating the article (at the title "Suicide of...") if the passing of time does confirm a lasting impact. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination tells us that the matter is having a significant impact and the topic is certainly notable. There is therefore no case for peremptory deletion.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep International attention surrounding this tragic incident is growing. The details surrounding his death ought to be provided in an article as it is now. For years to come it seems likely that this poor boy will be the face of anti-gay bullying in the same way that Matthew Shepherd was and still is the face of anti-gay violence. Ncondee (talk 12:28, 2 October 2010 (CEST)
 * Weak Delete Some seem to be getting things backwards. We don't keep an article and see if it becomes notable, thats WP:CRYSTAL. Attention is already fading a few days later, and Though I find it unfortunate, I don't feel that many will remember this or use it as an example in the future. Though unfortunate, these type of things are common. WP:EVENT doesn't have enough strength to sway many !votes, so this is just my interpretation.  Grsz 11  15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement about attention fading a few days later does not seem to be supported by the measurable media attention. The article under discussion was created a day ago (now locked for 7 days) but the suicide was ten days ago and my searching of GNews articles shows that the number of matches almost doubled in the last 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've amended.  Grsz 11  17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E. In itself not an event with lasting or enduring notability as of now. No prejudice against recreating at a future date if further developments make the event fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes this notable from most suicides from bullying is that in this incident people are actually being charged for crimes related to the incident. Kingturtle (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated previously, some people unfortunately become notable because of their deaths. Wolf1728 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and there is every reason to expect that there will be even more coverage in the future. With the article as currently titled, the subject is the suicide, not the individual. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the event has been covered in multiple sources for a while now, and now the biographical article has been renamed. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep not only has the story had plenty of notable news coverage, but considering why he has become notable, it is likely that he will still remain in the public's consciousness long enough to justify this article's existence. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of sourcing has been provided for the death of this individual. It is entirely possible that the subject will receive no further news coverage and so will constitute an event with no long-term notability, but it's too early to make that judgment now. Hut 8.5 11:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's too early to make a judgement as to whether the article has long-term notability per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but be aware that WP:NOTNEWS states that news stories must have long term notability. It makes more sense to userfy the article until such time as enduring notability can be established; "keep it because you don't know it won't be notable" is a WP:BALL argument.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a weak keep. I'm not sure I object to userfying for now, but I think just keeping it might make sense because of the response. If a bill on cyber-harassment is being written due to this incident, as a source appears to indicate than I would say lasting notability seems plausible. Still I could see a case for having this in the cyberbullying article rather than on its own.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having problems figuring out how to clearly say this, but I think you and others are misapplying WP:BALL. Yes, it's about not guessing about the future, but it's with respect to the event itself, not the coverage of the event.  We can and should use common sense when we apply policies and guidelines--even if that means guessing about the degree of future coverage.  Is there a chance this event won't have long-lasting notability?  Sure.  But I think most all of us agree that's extremely unlikely at this point.  If we turn out to be wrong, we can delete it later.  We should also be asking "what's best for the encyclopedia".  And delaying coverage of notable topics seems like a mistaken priority.  I also think folks are misapplying WP:EVENT and NOTNEWS.  They are for fairly trivial events.  Even if the coverage on this ended today, this would be significantly more than a passing news story--the number of article and editorials and the like on the topic has created enduring notability already.  4 articles over 8 months is no more "endearingly notable" than 100s in 10 days. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to discourage consensus building discussion, but could folks please avoid repeating the same argument when responding to other !votes? As an example I note one contributor not only expressed their opinion but has managed to repeat it at least five times with various shortcuts to WP:NOT. Refer to WP:DUCKSEASON. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating a counterargument is perfectly valid when others appear to be failing to acknowledge and address it. The big difference between what "one contributor" has said and the example at WP:DUCKSEASON is that I am pointing out to those who are !voting to keep with arguments like "there are many references so it's notable", that that hasn't been disputed. There's no point saying "keep because it's notable" in response to "delete because it may not remain notable". And trying to undermine an argument in such a way is a poor substitute for refuting it.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article at nj.com does a good job summarizing why Clementi and his death became more than a news story. Hekerui (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I came to this wiki page looking for sourced material on a notable event currently sparking a great deal of debate across a variety of media and organizations. This event has already shown itself to be the most notable gay teen suicide in recently history, and this wiki page has utility as a reference. Slamorte (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above; mainstream media still covering event, aftermath, and legal ramifications. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd appreciate it if the keepers could please explain why this should not be deleted in terms of WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If this is kept, then those policies and guidelines seem invalid; if they are, that raises bigger questions, including whether or not Wikinews should exist at all. I'm open to discussion; I just do not understand the purpose of those sections of policy and guideline if this is kept.  Chzz  ► 18:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some of us did explain. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, you were kind enough to elaborate in your reasoning, and I appreciate that. The question I have there is, I think (and forgive me if I misunderstand) you're saying we should "wait and see". This is the exact opposite of Wikipedia norms in deletion; we look at whether, right now, something appropriately suits the policies and guidelines. If, over time, the situation changes and it falls into the remit, then it could of course be created / undeleted and fixed at that future date - but I don't believe we should be predicting that.
 * In addition, could you give your views re WP:1E - this individual, it is quite clear, is not notable for any reasons other than this terrible tragedy.
 * Please note, I am not directly criticising your opinion, which is absolutely valid and welcome; I am only asking the questions to further my own understanding of these things. If it turns out that these types of events are indeed appropriate, then that's all good, and I will adapt my thinking accordingly, for future cases.
 * In the interests of full disclosure here, I must point out that I, personally, spent a great deal of time working on a Wikinews article, US undergraduate commits suicide after 'outing' via webcast. And if, indeed, having it on Wikipedia is appropriate, then I am certainly all in favour. My reason for working on the Wikinews piece was to raise awareness. If we can have it on Wikipedia too, that's great, excellent. My deletion !vote here was because, as I interpret policies, it is not appropriate here; I kinda hope I am wrong, actually.
 * I hope that is clear; I could imagine people will misinterpret my questioning here as, in some way, my wanting this deleted because of my 'rival' article; I absolutely assure you, that is not the case. the more publicity this gets, the better, as far as I am concerned. It's an utter tragedy, and the more people consider it, the better chances of preventing similar incidents in the future. Best,  Chzz  ► 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the article is no longer about the individual, as per the title change discussion. The article is about the cyber-bulling case, the suicide, the high profile media and celebrity interest and the on-going prosecution of two students. Consequently the article can be considered to meet the guidance of 1E (as it is more than one event and is a continuing important legal case) and is more than just a news item published on one day. BTW, I thought the news article was excellent and I added the inter-wiki link back to this article yesterday; I agree that they exist for different reasons and never thought of them being in competition. I was pleased to see you expressing an opinion here as the AfD can only benefit from your experience. Fæ (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) And thank you for your very kind elaboration. (And I doubt that anyone is concerned about the rival article thing; I'm definitely not.) About WP:1E, what I take from it is that the page should be about the event, rather than be a bio page, and now, it is. About the "wait and see" issue, well, I see that as the point where there are good arguments either way, and where the tipping point of this AfD decision probably lies. For me, what I said about WP:BREAKING in my earlier comment is what makes me lean in the direction of considering wait and see to be appropriate, but I can certainly understand an argument that, instead, the page should be userified during the wait. I perceive it as the more constructive way to deal with what we have now, which is not, of course, a perfect situation, but the situation that we have. (By the way, today's New York Times has a featured review of the significance of the incident.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a huge story, one that will have wide impact on the issues involved and will be discussed and analyzed for years. Encyclopaedic. Jack Merridew 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too soon to tell if this event has a lasting impact since it only occurred one week ago. But it has had an impact so far so keep it. For those saying WP:1E policy rules all. Where would you merge the content? Rutgers University? I think that policy has to be revisited if it means we just delete notable stuff. --MarsRover (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shirik. Qajar (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.