Deletion of Tyler clementi

Comment: I think the event is clearly notable.  The person is less clear at this time.  It's clearly a  and I'm not yet certain the bio will rise above those standards, though as Kingturtle points out we are well on our way. That said, it's at least a close call and I'd prefer to keep for now and revisit in a month or so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: As I said elsewhere, the event satisfies  and  based on coverage in several well-known news publications; I think it satisfies  by virtue of the fact that large numbers of the LGBT community outside the US have now heard about the incident; and  seems like it's likely to apply in time, as this is causing calls for anti-bullying measures to be taken (c.f. http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2010/09/an_important_message_from_ellen_about_bullying_0930.php The Ellen DeGeneres Message), and Matthew Shepard is even listed as an example there. This, of course, remains to be seen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH||WP:DIVERSE||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: As cruel as it is to say, I really don't think a year from now many will remember this, and ''that'' is the definition of |notability. Notability is TEMP|not temporary, and more specifically, this is ''exactly'' why  exists. Yes, there is significant coverage now. That's because it's a major news event, not a notable event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NTEMP||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:EVENT doesn't supply us with a good mechanism for reconciling the requirement that "an event must have a lasting effect" with the proviso "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I strongly ''suspect'' that this event will have a lasting effect (to acknowledge my biases, I bloody ''hope'' it does and that this poor man's death spurs change that will protect others), but I do not have a |crystal ball and do not think that my hunch is reason enough to ignore the requirement for evidence of lasting effect. No prejudice to recreating the article (at the title "Suicide of...") if the passing of time does confirm a lasting impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per . In itself not an event with lasting or enduring notability as of now. No prejudice against recreating at a future date if further developments make the event fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Some seem to be getting things backwards. We don't keep an article and see if it becomes notable, thats . Attention is already fading a few days later, and Though I find it unfortunate, I don't feel that many will remember this or use it as an example in the future. Though unfortunate, these type of things are common.  doesn't have enough strength to sway many !votes, so this is just my interpretation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:EVENT)

Comment: It's currently impossible to tell how much long-term notability this event has. Other instances of suicide following bullying have not achieved lasting importance, but this one may be different because of the nature of the events and because it particularly highlights the issue of young LGB people being bullied. My question is, how long do we wait and see? When is 'enduring notability' established?  only really says to avoid 'routine news reporting' and that breaking news should not be 'emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information'. It's not clear to me how this necessarily precludes an article on a subject that is currently notable and will almost certainly prompt further debate about bullying, cyber-bullying and treatment of LGB youth
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the event's notability isn't in question; there's no denying that the event received very good coverage in reliable sources. However, it was just that: a single event, and the individual isn't notable enough for inclusion based solely on the coverage of their suicide. Moreover, at this point the story itself was very recent and there's no evidence of enduring notability for the story (it's been in the news a whopping 2 days so far and it may or may not continue to be covered as a significant LGBT afterwards, but at the moment we |don't know that), so per  neither the individual nor the event should be included at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:BIO1E  - as clear a case as I've seen. If history shows it becomes a notable topic, fine; until then, it simply does not belong (as a specific topic). Mentions in other articles, for sure. Merge some if appropriate, to teen suicides, or whatever the N subject may be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: for now anyway. This is the usual problem with breaking news stories in that its really hard to tell the difference between "in the news" and "falls under |notnews". The only way we'll be able to tell the difference is after a month or two has passed. Oh, and |troutslap the article creators for creating articles about the person and not the event. We've been at this wikipedia thing long enough that we should know better, ''Cover the event, not the person
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TROUT)

Comment: I'd appreciate it if the keepers could please explain why this should not be deleted in terms of  and . If this is kept, then those policies and guidelines seem invalid; if they are, that raises bigger questions, including whether or not Wikinews should exist at all. I'm open to discussion; I just do not understand the purpose of those sections of policy and guideline if this is kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NOTNEWS)