Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident


 * 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. Remember that AfD is not a vote. Based on the balance of this discussion, with the relative strength of the presented arguments, the appeal to our policy of WP:NOT appears stronger that to our inclusion guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

YouTube cat abuse incident

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see any claim to notability in this article. 14-year old does something v.stupid is not notable. Illegal act posted to youtube, ditto. Perp arrested as a result of youtube video, ditto. Incident used as space-filler to sell advertising in dead-tree publications, based on same AP news release, ditto. Combination of same, ditto. See also WP:NOT which states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". Exactly what is the historical notability of this 14-year old's error? Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * comment I'm tempted to say keep merely because it's the first time 4chan users have done something good... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment They've been good at least once before - Pflugerville, Texas --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I think it's actually more notable for the actions of Anonymous (group) than the videos or the abusers themselves. Nobody's going to remember the name of the perps or the fact that it was on YouTube, but as another form of hacktivism (akin to the Wang Jue kitten crushing incident and the fallout) it's notable.--Piepie (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Some of this should be moved into the main 4chan article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This incident made international news (was reported in papers from Ireland, the UK, France, Russia, and Australia at least) and seems to have gotten a great deal of publicity. It meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR because it is well-sourced and describes what is already said elsewhere in reliable references. *** Crotalus *** 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep My initial thought was delete, but this article has multiple international RS and seems to satisfy our criteria. Could do with expansion, but there are plenty of sources. Verbal   chat  20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Themfromspace. The real subject of this article is the kid, and I see this as a WP:BLP1E issue. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. As much as it pains me to say it, this meets WP:N and WP:V. Should this be notable? Not by a long shot. However, there are enough sources that meet WP:RS to get it through WP:N. Firestorm  Talk 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this article IS kept, I strongly recommend we make certain the alleged perpetrator's identity is kept out of the article permanently on BLP grounds. Exxolon (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On that point I disagree with you, but it is an issue to be addressed at the article's talk page or BLP/N, not here. Joe 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The mass propagation of the video and the fashion in which the video was analyzed toward the identification of an alleged perpetrator make this a remarkable case, more notable than a usual news event otherwise of this sort, toward which see the broad and non-trivial coverage in international publications the incident has received; even under the most restrictive interpretation of NOTNEWS, then, and surely under the construction of NOTNEWS for which a consensus exists, this merits encyclopedic treatment. Joe 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Wow, it survived a whole five hours before going up for deletion. Sarcasm aside, its received enough coverage in reliable sources that notability is not an issue. Its written based on the incident, not the person (who's name probably hasn't even been released), so there's no BLP1E issue involved either. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Their name HAS been released. I've already had to redact it from the article and a WP:AN post. Exxolon (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And you and others make the mistake of confusing multiple RS with notability. They are not the same thing. Notability asks for "historical notability" for news stories. This is far from the first youtube posting which has led to a perp being identified. It has no historical notability whatsoever, just none whatsoever. Multiple RS simply means that multiple newspapers thought is was a colourful enough story to run: god help us if tabloid preferences become our guide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the first and formost indicator of notability is multiple independent sources. Much like Paris Hilton, this is incredibly stupid and if it weren't for the press coverage, nobody would care. But also like Hilton, there is press coverage. From all over, not just local. That makes it notable enough to cover here. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates WP:BLP and is stuff that's more suitable for Wikinews.--Sloane (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

cat break 1

 * Keep Does not violate BLP since the person's name isn't even mentioned (unless of course you are talking about the cat); this incident has caused international outrage and has received much media coverage Lets  drink Tea 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it doesn't mention the name is I removed it from the article. It's certainly a potential BLP problem. Exxolon (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Russia Today, The Sun, The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph. This is no Boxxy, these are solid non blog sources. Meets WP:N by a longshot. --  Zaiger  talkplx 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * also here is a blog report from Harvard law just for fun http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/zeroday/2009/02/16/internet-mob-justice-tracks-down-cat-abuser/--  Zaiger  talkplx 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Multiple reliable sources is only one aspect of the establishment of notability; this doesn't meet the rest of them. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate how? --  Zaiger  talkplx 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge into another article like Anonymous_(group). However, it's distinct from the Chris Forcand, Hal Turner and Chanology 'raids' since it wasn't initially planned or done for the lulz. It was a genuine knee-jerk reaction by 4chan upon discovery of Kenny Glenn's YouTube videos. It's already generated a fair amount of old media coverage and it will probably get more notable as it goes to trial. This blog from Harvard talks about this as an example of "Internet mob justice". Also I'm surprised this doesn't have an article http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chinese_bloggers_pressure_leads_to_kitten_killer_giveup --Piepie (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a news story, not an historic case. It may be that the story reflects modern society or says something about what people do with you-tube or how you-tube is used to solve crimes.  But wait until someone writes a book about those subjects and decides to incorporate this story to illustrate their thesis.  From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to give further publicity to juvenile delinquents who break the law in order to gain publicitity for themselves.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The first half of your remark is fine, but we don't delete pages just because we don't like the people they are about. Plenty of horrible people are notable enough for an article, and plenty of wonderful people aren't. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean don't write about someone because we don't like them, just don't create articles about nasty people just because they made EyeWitness news in Buffalo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

cat break 2

 * Delete transient 4chan meme, WP:BLP minefield. Might just belong at Wikinews if anyone still cares. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments of Crotalus, and the comment above I do not find to be helpful.--HootlePooch (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Abuse happens all the time. Here today, gone tomorrow. Also, as mentioned above, this is a BLP minefield. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - nobody's gonna care about this a decade, if not sooner, from now. There is also a story about a man from toledo who kidnapped a woman and forced her to wear a diaper as he read the bible to her. Is this deserving of an article too? (I can already imagine the "wikibureaucratic" name now: "Toledo diaper kidnapping incident".) Anyhow, what about Stuart Slann (Stuart Slann facebook hoax)? that made headlines too, does it deserve an article as well? If so, I vote for an article for every 4chan meme ever. --Philip Laurence (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also the question of the title of this article, which to the uninitiated might seem as if YouTube are the feline abusers. Kevin (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, especially ludicrously ephemeral news such as this. Forget next decade: no-one will care about this next month. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been argued that WP:NOTNEWS provides a rationale to delete this article. That policy states that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; this is clearly not such a topic. It stresses that articles on individuals notable for one event are to be avoided; that is precisely what this article does, in lieu of an article on the perpetrator(s). The "think of the children" argument that the article is "a WP:BLP minefield" is plainly not a reason to delete it, for if all such articles were worthy of deletion, we would deprive our readers of articles on Rihanna, Child suicide bombers in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Family of Sarah Palin and so on. Let's be very clear on this point: Notability is not subjective. The Irish Times and The Telegraph are prominent broadsheet newspapers, and without doubt reliable sources independent of this topic. The coverage of this event in the two articles is not trivial, and unambiguously fulfills the significance criterion. In short, this topic clearly meets the encyclopaedia's threshold for inclusion, the general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored. Skomorokh  09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We have Harvard Law and several other reliable sources covering the incident. Of course BLP is an issue. We should make every effort to not ruin the kid's life because of one mistake, but it's doable to navigate the so-called BLP minefield. If it turns out this is later forgotten, we can always delete it then. If it turns out we can't navigate the minefield effectlive, ditto. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a consensus to keep such articles with much 3rd party mention, even if the issue may well be forgotten in a decade or so (or very much sooner). There was recently a snowfall in the UK which hit Wiki's front page.  If Wiki is a repository of the world's knowledge, it could also be an archive of such events, even if there might be some issues with ethnocentrism.  I would say keep as per WP:NOTPAPER Power.corrupts (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

cat break 3

 * Keep per notability asserted and shown. Then discuss on talk page the possibility of merging this content to abuse sections or either 4chan or Youtube as more viable search terms.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously per Not news Eusebeus (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the notnews/meme/etc arguments. This became an issue only because a bunch of teenagers at 4chan decided to take revenge over it (as a cat person, I was rooting for them, but that's besides the point), and it's the only reason this article exists. Thousands of animals are abused every day, and many of those occurrences are also brought to the attention of the authorities and the perpetrators punished in some way. Yet we don't have articles about those. As a standalone event outside of the intertubes angle, it's completely non-notable at best. And it didn't even turn into a notable meme that I can see. § FreeRangeFrog 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy and others. We're not a news site or dumping ground for 4chan crap. Notability is not temporary, and this is just another flash in the pan. Move on. Glass  Cobra  20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Guy. This is so transient (who remembers the Dog crap girl?), clearly not encyclopedic.  If people are still talking about it in a year, maybe there's a point.  THF (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, we've got an article on Dog poop girl. As for who remembers her... you clearly do, and now I know about her, too. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a bad example because Daniel Solove wrote a book where that incident played a big part, which is why it was on my mind, but that's what made that notable (though I see the book isn't cited, but the blog post is). Still, I believe in WP:NOT, even if AfD generally doesn't. I can see discussion of the incident in Internet vigilantism, so it's not like I'm for purging the content; I just don't believe in having all the parallel articles with duplicate content that we have. THF (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - News story. We are an encyclopedia. — R  2  00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Internet vigilantism. - Per WP:BLP, we've got to "get it right", and the article will need to be watched closely for violations. (Yes, both articles are now on my watchlist.) Still, it meets the criteria, and the arguments for deleting seem to me to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether or not we like it, this is an event that is shaping and defining how we relate to the Internet in the 21st century, partly because of what happened, and partly because it's getting so much attention. A comparable event in a year won't get the same media attention, and would likely not meet our notability standards. For now, this is what it looks like when new cultural ground is broken. Freaky, huh? I don't remember anything in my childhood comparable to "U.S. cat abuser punished by the internet". Whenever the histories of the Internet are written, and this event is put into a historical context, then we'll deal with it in those terms, but until then, I think it passes muster. What I don't understand it what would make a kid want to do that to a cat. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Guy, Realist2. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several extremely good secondary sources establish notability. We know that wikipedians are generally biased against 4chan and related trolling sites. Other "newsy" articles with such quality sources would never get deleted. A little less hipocrisy and a little more NPOV please. AfD hero (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The above is a completely unacceptable accusation for which I've taken the writer to task elsewhere. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You personally may or may not be biased, but it is a fact that wikipedians on the whole tend to have a systematic bias against 4chan and related sites. I'm just bringing up the elephant in the room... AfD hero (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep . Frankly the abuse itself is NOT notable. YouTube probably has hundreds of animal abuse videos, I really don't see the point in this.  however, 4chan trolls' admittedly respectable response really began to push this event into being notable.  yes, it's sensational, silly, and needlessly immature--but it's a popular event, stealing coverage from notable sources.  reluctant keep... Mikey9090 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it made international news. Glad they tracked down and arrested the scoundrel.   D r e a m Focus  16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP and protect from deletion again. Ikip (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is that done? I'm not aware of any process that permanently, or even temporarily, protects an article from deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete not every incident of animal abuse reported in the media deserves an article, maybe transwiki to wikinews since wikipedia is not news.Troyster87 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2009 (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.