Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete the page as a draft. Were this in the article space, some of the concerns expressed by the delete camp (specifically the potential harm and the prose issues) would hold more weight and the page would likely be deleted, but drafts are given significantly more leeway in those areas than articles. There is no prejudice against renomination iff the creator (and potentially other editors) cannot get the draft to an article-acceptable status. Primefac (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick


This is just plain not an appropriate topic, and no amount of draft improvement or additional sources will make it appropriate. Fails WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely agree. I think child suicide articles, unless they reference a significant outcome, such as a legislative change, are inappropriate, prurient, insensitive, non-notable and potentially harmful. I am puzzled by prior discussions on this issue, which appear to focus more on the availability of sources than the significance of the subject, or the potentially harmful impact such articles could have. KJP1 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a potentially notable subject and we're not debating notability at a draft's MFD. If this were wholly inappropriate, to the likes of something made up, I'd agree it should be deleted but it clearly has significance. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What significance does it have? KJP1 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, the bullies being charged, . The multiple attempts to get anything related to the topic of suicide lately seems very WP:POINTY to me and this seems an inappropriate use of MFD. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient, criteria. In other words, something can pass WP:N and still fail WP:NOT. Which is the case here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And this isn't in main space - while I agree it could go either way with WP:ONEEVENT, it also has more significance than a standard suicide due to bullying because individuals are being were charged, which sets a legal precedent. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm not at all sure what "precedent" you think the charging sets. Or why it gives it significance, particularly as they've since been dropped. As to WP:POINTY, I don't understand that at all. What point do you think I'm trying to make? KJP1 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also this and this. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, there are some sources available. And....? KJP1 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's evident that this draft can be worked on and thus not really a good use of MfD. This isn't a disruptive draft, this isn't a wholly unencyclopedic topic - it's in draft space, precisely where it belongs. Time to drop the stick. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as the pointyness - you've tried to delete/nominate several suicide related articles and drafts for deletion on the basis that it's not encyclopedic and that they are "purient, insensitive and non-notable". While I agree there is a line to walk when it comes to sensitive subjects, Wikipedia is not censored. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And to add to my keep, this isn't a BLP1E or ONEEVENT based on this piece from Cosmo and many others: The sheriff brought felony aggravated-stalking charges against two of Rebecca's former classmates: Katelyn Roman, who was 12 years old at the time, and Guadalupe Shaw, who was 14. Their names and photos, which officials released to the public, soon led news reports. CNN called it a "tipping point" that could spark other charges against "adolescent bullies.". This has a lasting impact, despite charges being dropped and is one of the first (and few) cases in which bullying lead to a death and the bullies were charged - even if dropped. I have no vested interest in the subject but it seems clear to me this meets inclusion criteria in main space, let alone draft space. I'll work on the tone, though. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find you're the one walking about with a stick, and waving it around rather aggressively. But we clearly won't agree. And the word’s prurient. KJP1 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NMFD. Setting that aside, significant disagreement about the appropriateness of the topic above has occurred above, making deleting it as a draft unseemly. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - On the one hand, as a draft, the author should be given a chance to improve this draft and bring it up to where it can reasonably be considered. This isn't an article at this time.  On the other hand, and this is what I think is the issue, the use of the Under Review tag for five days seems abusive, the use of the tag to prevent discussion of the page.  Five days is too long to leave tagged for review.  Take it to the C: drive and start over.  Do not salt, at least not yet.   Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I ask this question not as someone interested in the fate of the draft, but as the defacto AFC coordinator and someone rather interested in seeing how the AFC/MFD clashes are handled: how are you getting at an "abuse" by having an under review tag on the draft for five days? Have you never forgotten or been pulled away from a draft you've marked under review? Where was discussion stifled because of an "under review" tag? Additionally, how does this review tag equate to "delete it and start over"? Your first sentence implies a keep, but the remainder of your comment are irrelevant and thus I find your !vote rather confusing. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC) For the record, my interest in/watchlisting of this page goes back to the copyvio issues
 * Those authoring the page should not be punished because a reviewer leaves the page under review for a length of time that is perceived to be too long. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The review template problem was only a minor annoyance and not a factor in my decision to nominate. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Per nom.No amount of editing can improve notability and it isn't acquired by throwing in a bunch of G-hits. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject to an AfD or RfC decision. Definitely real-world-notable, and certainly mergeable into another broader topic.  The Wikipedia-notability question hinges on whether the very long run of news articles meet the WP:GNG, most critically, are they just rolling news reports (primary sources devoid of transformation of facts), or reputable secondary sources. These old crime/tragedy events are difficult notability-borderline cases for us, but I am sure nothing in WP:NOT is directly violated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because the WP:GNG threshold has been met, and WP:NOTCENSORED includes "not bowdlerized of the emotionally troubling". The article requires significant editing for encyclopedic tone to get rid of all the contractions and non-WP:NPOV value judgments and the like, but that is an issue for another forum. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  21:05, 16 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.