Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd

Information regarding PROP proposer
As I am unable to even post an opinion on the PROD page (this site is becoming more and more like a totalitarian state every month - so much for the open encyclopedia where anyone can edit!), I will post it here.

Apparently the user who started this PROD could be a blocked user using a proxy server. This makes the call for deletion an act of trolling. Harmful and distasteful in light of the suicide of this girl.

I suggest the PROD be closed as the initial proposer's motives are questionable.


 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.96.4 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion
Keep it.... as this is an invaluable education for parents and teens alike.


 * I copied this over to the project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Todd
STRONG KEEP as we all learn more about what has happened, we should all be willing to learn from this experience, there may be 1 simple clue that helps another parent, or Teen from going down the same road.Livewyer (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied this over to the project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

VERY STRONG KEEP.....Everyone should be made aware of what bullying can lead too. This girl gave her life, lets not make it be in vain...the word about what happened to her needs to be out there! ....s.burris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.106.207 (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied this over to the project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP-  My opinion is that this is only one incidence of a very important topic on Bullying, but this is an illustration of a very typical episode, and so should be kept for educational purposes. Also, bullying is a hot topic with anthropologists and other social scientists alike, considering its study in the context of gender, class, race, etc. So, I think this should be linked to a discussion such as that. Finally (Am I asking for too much? First time doing this), This page should be linked somehow to a discussion on Kleinman's Illness Narratives, as Amanda has told her story on how she developed depression from peer abuse. 75.94.26.142 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied this over to the project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

KEEP: Wikipedia has grown to be known as a place to get detailed, straightforward information. Although it is a public-edited site, there is a certain level of trust associated with the site. Having recently heard of the Amanda Todd incident, I found google searches to reveal very little about what actually happened. As usual when looking for information on a topic, my go-to place is Wikipedia, where I was able to read the history of the issue. It has been argued that there is little encyclopedic analysis of the issue, and that it reads more like a news article, and to this I say, perhaps so, but Wikipedia is a place to gain information, and even if it's reported information on a very current event, it may be more relevant and accurate than various short online news clips. I say keep it, because relevant, clear information compiled on events has a practical use for those who search for info on these events. Though it is an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia should recognize the adaptation of its function as a source for information on current-history news events, not simply discussions of long-past issues or academic topics. FranzPattison (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2012 (PDT)


 * I copied this over to the project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why can't unregistered users have input into whether or not the page is deleted?
Why can't unregistered users have input into whether or not the page is deleted? What is the rationale? Seems to be against Wikipedia's own terms as an encyclopedia "anyone can edit"-- protection for actual articles that have been vandalized several times I understand, but a discussion page? Difficult to see any rationale for that beyond simply discriminating against unregistered users of Wikipedia.


 * Because such users add little value, substance, or reason to a discussion of important issues in this project. They generally know nothing about the projects guidelines and policies regarding sourcing, notability, BLP, and frequently make some of the most ill-informed "keep because I like it", "keep because he/she/it has a lot of google hits", "keep because he/she/it has a million youtube likes" votes this side of Creation. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you are admitting it IS discriminating against unregistered users of Wikipedia, though providing a weak rationale for it.
 * Spoken like a true Wikipedian fundamentalist. As someone who has always edited as an IP since they first came here in 2004. It's a pity that I did not go for admin when the task of being one was so much more "enlightened". Now it's akin to being made to run the gauntlet of a bunch of know-it-all school kids. No you represent the the ill-informed, the protective and the ignorant. Remember when consensus is sought any two morons can shout down a genius. The article is protected because of vested interests. They just don't like people with a world-wide perspective putting their noses into parochial bickering and system gaming. Sad but true. Jimbo didn't get his $25m without peons working for free! 31.52.210.90 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Preach on, brother unregistered user!
 * Unfortunately, it is far more likely that you are being deceptive and are simply one of the legions of grudge-holding banned/blocked users from Wikipedia past. Thank you for more or less proving my point regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of IP editing. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And thank you for proving my original point-- that it's simply discriminating against unregistered users in favor of registered ones.


 * Apparently non-admins don't have much of an input at all. Having this closed as "no consensus" by someone claiming that policy favors deleting the article, after 100 of us have explained exactly why policy does not suggest deleting the article - what it means is that we're wasting our time here, and what we should be doing is forgoing the dubious benefits of "collaboration" and producing articles for Yahoo Voices or somebody at $3 or $5 an article for owners who will at least value and keep them. Wnt (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down, friend. The article isn't going anywhere.  It doesn't make a difference that the closer said "no consensus".--Milowent • hasspoken  04:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right - but we'll see. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It should make no difference that the closer gave reason "No consensus" rather than "Keep" plus some comment that this could be revisited later, in how wikipedia works, i pretty much know from longish experience here. But it seemed peevish and mean, especially with many non-regular wikipedia editors participating. -- do  ncr  am  19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional feedback from non-autoconfirmed users
With regard to the argument to delete because the BBC had not picked it up yet: BBC is now reporting this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19960162 Gmporr (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)