Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amanda Todd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:Notability. Fails WP:EFFECT WP:GEOSCOPE WP:PERSISTENCE. added: I have seen no evidence of lasting effects of this case in any shape or form. As such, I am considering the article based solely upon the facts. While the event has received a lot of media scrutiny, there have been no ramifications within society or legal systems that endure. Until such a time as this event creates larger events beyond itself, the article lacks true substance and notability. An example of a case that I think demonstrates potential long term effects of the Suicide of Amanda Todd is Murder of Adam Walsh. The potential has yet to materialize, and until so I firmly recommend deletion. L.cash.m (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy keep The nominator has cited some areas which are reasons that cry out for the article to be kept. The notability is not temporary. While it is considered highly possible that such articles may create copycat events, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tool for social welfare. The article is notable, and should stay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - notability is not temporary. and this article is highly notable. end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy keep per WP:SNOW, maybe you should actually read WP:NEVENTS JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read WP:NEVENTs before I decided to act upon another user's request that this be nominated. That was an hour and a half ago but I'm assuming you have reread them since then. L.cash.m (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep not temporary notable. The case has lasting effects. Jarkeld (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It is not disputed that the topic received wide coverage and a simple look at this google news search will show that the coverage has been lasting. Amanda Todd was second in the vote for the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year for 2012 [1]. That last point, being the second highest voted newsmaker of the year in Canada, shows beyond a doubt that this article should stay. Ryan Vesey 21:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep with prejudice against renomination for 6 months per the above recommendations and those of the previous AFD; also procedural close since this was snowball kept exactly 2 months ago (with a prior no consensus AFD less than a month before that) and it is too soon for renomination.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think we can set a limit for renomination, though a guideline can be suggested. Part of our role as editors is to discuss and rediscuss things, after all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one could in this case for example question the point in renominating it too soon as it will be an almost certainty lead to speedy keep, and if renomination is happening then it should be on grounds that are not just one single/or just a few users opinions of deletion. It should in my opinion be a quite strong consensus for another AfD, so that we dont waste users time and effort on this. My personal opinion is that this article can never be deleted on any kind of grounds, per the fact that notability is not temporary--BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep and smack the nominator of this with a blue whale... Notability is not temporary, thus this is still notable. It received WORLDWIDE coverage and news stories were still appearing in newspapers last month: [2] [3] [4]. This article should be protected from AfDs indefinitely. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.