- Suicide of Katelyn Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This page was deleted less than 17 hours after it was first nominated. Deletion discussions are supposed to last at least a week. I didn't get a chance to vote "keep" before the page disappeared, and others are known to support the page too. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#Wikipedia_articles_on_teen_suicides another user said, "The case is clearly notable. The free speech angle alone makes it worth covering". It received international coverage in reliable secondary sources such as: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/katelyn-nicole-davis-12-year-old-kill-herself-suicide-livestream-video-live-viral-cedartown-georgia-a7523666.html. Because millions experienced her video(s), this event should be at least as notable as all the other pages in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bullycide. There is criticism of some of the page's sources being YouTube, but those are just references to primary sources (which are allowed in moderation) directly proving statements made in the article (and they're easily adjusted/removed if necessary). Some feel the page is "too sensitive" or "immoral" and shouldn't exist on those grounds, but WP:NOTCENSORED covers that. Some claim the event didn't have far-reaching effects, although it did push Facebook and other social media sites to increase detection and reporting features, in order to more quickly catch and better prevent livestreaming events like this from happening in the future. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO it is not clear in deletion review info what is the decision that is being reviewed. In this case it is this AFD about "Suicide of Katelyn Davis" article. --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
side-discussion about how XfD header works
|
- Why on earth doesn't Deletion Review automatically provide a link to the decision being reviewed? In this case it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Davis. --Doncram (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually does, but it's in the rather obscure link above marked "XfD". — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? I have edited for more than 10 years and participated occasionally in deletion review, and don't think i ever noticed that. And it is still not identified as the decision being reviewed, and I am not sure that XfD link is always that. The salient/primary/first link given there is often/usually to a deleted page or to a redirect, whose history might or might not be any help. Thanks though. --Doncram (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Like so much software, wikipedia is like a video game. You learn the rules by playing a lot, and sometimes, even after years, you discover something new :-) In theory, the XfD link points to the discussion page. But, that assumes the header is formatted correctly, which isn't always the case. See WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review.
|
- Overturn and re-open. The discussion was prejudiced by prior discussion at the BLP noticeboard. The full seven days should be allowed to enable other readers and interested parties to participate. The claim that there is some pressing BLP issue seems fanciful because the subject died over a year ago and the case appears to be closed. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the sourcing in the deleted version was awful - the article is based on YouTube videos, blogs, tabloid newspapers, self-published websites, local news and only a few respectable news outlets. You can use self-published sources for some things, but you can't base an article on them and you can't use them for material which is this sensitive. The article made several claims against family members which would absolutely be covered under WP:BLP, and that policy can cover people who died within the last two years in some circumstances. The OP also hasn't addressed the central point of the nomination that the subject is only notable for one event (WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E). Appearing in news articles as a news event doesn't give an event notability if it didn't generate any lasting coverage. If you really think that Wikipedia should have an article on this person then I'd suggest writing a draft one which addresses the issues in the AfD. I absolutely do not think this one should be restored. Hut 8.5 10:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer comment - (noting that this issue wasn't discussed with me before the DRV was started, as it should have been per the rules). I don't think the article stood a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the deletion discussion, and given the sensitivities of the issue and the points raised about multiple serious BLP issues involving a minor and her family, as well as possible breach of laws in the US and/or the EU I decided to take the rare step of deleting the article early. As Hut says, this could be a candidate for a WP:TNT fresh start, and if such an article or draft were created which didn't breach BLP, then it could be considered for deletion/keeping again in light of whether it satisfies WP:BLP1E. I stand by my decision to nix the original, although I'm happy to be overruled if enough experienced users feel I erred. — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OP comment - Oops, my apologies to Amakuru, as it looks like I did something prematurely too! ;-) More seriously, we should remember that "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". In other words, we should save our opinions about article content or what we personally feel should be done with an article for its talk page or an appropriate AfD discussion. If one believes that the existence of an article in the first place violates a serious policy, and therefore needs to disappear quickly without an appropriate length AfD discussion, then it should be WP:SPEEDY deleted. However if one just feels certain statements within an article violate a policy, then it's better to just be WP:BOLD and edit/delete the text in question (and hopefully discuss the matter on the page's talk page for the ongoing improvement of the article). Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist there's no way to know from the material at the early close if better sources might not be found during the AfD. Additionally, the key BLP questions needed further discussion. Other people than the original participants needed a chance to see the discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
