Deletion of Suicide of Amanda Todd

Comment: The question is whether this is an example failing  or whether the event is of lasting historical or sociological importance. While the jury is necessarily out due to recentism, I am inclined to thing this is probably a case of the latter rather than the former. There certainly should be no scramble to delete until the smoke clears
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as per . The amount of coverage, particularly in Canadaa, guarantees ''Macleans'' and others will be doing feature stories on it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: Since being |increasingly covered in international media, this article satisfies  in my opinion. The "encyclopedic analysis" can and more than likely will improve over time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH||WP:N)

Comment: WP:BIO1E states that a separate article is appropriate "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". The event is significant; whether or not it deserves to be, given the fact that teenagers commit suicide every day all over the world and this is no different, is irrelevant - the fact is that the event has been |covered by many major news organisations worldwide (see the references in the article). Seeing as the event is her suicide, she obviously plays a large role within it. Thus BIO1E does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: Per . Nothing separates her suicide from that of any other depressed teenager and while it's gaining speed, it's only because of the fact she killed herself. She's not notable and does not warrant an article in the least
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Been in the news. Independent sources exist. Notability of the person may not established, but the notability of the ''event'', on the other hand, is firmly established. At very least this is merge material. If it is a "rehash of news" and not "encyclopedic analysis", we have a pesky |policy that requires us to leave the "analysis" at the door, last I checked. It leads to unfortunate stylistic choices. Need to wait until some more analysis-minded folks elsewhere wake up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Several !votes here reference , but it doesn't actually seem applicable to this article.   only states that separate articles should not be made about ''people'' who are only notable for one event, that the article should be about the event itself instead.  It doesn't say an article shouldn't be written about an ''event'' when that's the only thing a person is known for, just that a separate article shouldn't be written about the ''person'' involved.  ("When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.")  If this were an article about Amanda Todd herself, rather than about her suicide, then yes,  would apply.  But since this article ''is'' about the event (the article is called "Suicide of Amanda Todd", not "Amanda Todd"), that guideline isn't relevant here.  Of course, there's still the open question of whether the ''event'' itself is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but that's a separate issue.   has nothing to do with it, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: This should be at wikinews, not here per #NEWS. If the law is notable then Amanda Todd can be mentioned in connection with that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Removed per |No personal attacks policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

Comment: This article is not, as some have suggested, merely a biography of a person momentarily in the news. Rather it describes a suicide due to bullying that is of particular significance because it has become very widely known and has triggered a great deal of news coverage and debate here in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. The case is also notable because it is a relatively pure case of cyber-bullying, in the sense that it seems that it was not simply a use of social media by acquaintances of the victim. Furthermore, the article does not appear to fall into any of the four cases discussed in . By bringing together information from many sources, going into more detail than a newspaper typically does, and giving a broad overview of the topic rather than focussing on the latest development, it performs a function that newspaper articles rarely perform. One useful function of Wikipedia is that of providing a means of learning in more depth about, and obtaining a more coherent account of, a current event. One often reads a news item that doesn't give enough background or is too short to be clear. This is not a traditional function of encyclopaedias, but that is because traditional encyclopaedias were so slow to appear. It seems to me that it is a valid encyclopaedic function even if it is one that has only recently become possible because of advances in technology
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: per all the above, specifically . I would write a long rambling passage, but it's already been written
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: while my understanding of  indicates that this article ought to be deleted, there are a number of precedents on Wikipedia where the consensus was the opposite. For consistency, keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This page and incident are attracting too much wrong attention, and some have even said that it encourages suicide due to publicity. Truth is that many people commit suicide under these circumstances,, but this one just happened to be picked up by the media. Not notable per  . Special:Contributions/96.245.204.218|96.245.204.218
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: Come on, guys...This has been in the news (on a rather limited basis) for about 2 days now; that doesn't mean it's notable. I read about things like this every day, and I'm willing to bet that we won't even be hearing about it a week or two from now. If this event ends up prompting a large campaign like Rachel's Challenge or a change in legislation, then this may meet otability, but, for now, it's simply a local event that's been the topic of one or two copypastas. Get rid of it now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There is nothing notable outside of this |only event.  If, perchance, her suicide starts something like It Gets Better Project, then of course, a mention of the event, and sources in the appropriate section of that article would be warranted. Special:Contributions/74.77.201.49|74.77.201.49
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per #NEWS, , ,  and . This event just happened a couple days ago, and the only sources that exist are half-baked news reports. There are, of course, no sources that could testify to the lasting significance of this event. When, in the future, such sources arise, the article can be recreated, but as for now, there is no adequate sourcing to establish notability in the grand scheme of things
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:TENYEAR)

Comment: per . Of obvious national importance and interest, and "encyclopedic analysis" can be developed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: While I often cite  in my delete votes, it is premature to apply that here.  It is possible (likely, in my opinion) that this will have lasting reverberations unlike many other murder/suicide articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Providing informative, |well-sourced articles about |notable topics are part of Wikipedia's mandate.  This nomination smacks of .  If you don't like this article or this topic, the answer is simple: find another article to edit
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly |notable as indicated by the plethora of |sources reporting about it. This is not run of the mill news. Coverage is indeed worldwide: here is an http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2012/10/12/news/l_addio_al_mondo_di_amanda_todd_quindici_anni_vittima_di_un_cyber-bullo-44399821/?ref=HREC2-8 Italian newspaper report on the story, for example. The "encyclopedic analysis" bit is nonsense: the article is a "rehash" of news sources? Well, it's exactly what it should be then, for  and . We are not supposed to make stuff up. In any case, if an article is not perfect, it means it has to be edited, |not deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:ORIG||WP:SYN||WP:ATD)

Comment: per ,  and . A very tragic case, but few references outside Canada. From a UK perspective the story is mentioned by the Daily Mirror and Sky News, but I've just checked the BBC and they have nothing. It's certainly too early for this to appear as it only happened two days ago. Maybe if this becomes notable at a later time we can restore the article, but at this precise moment it shouldn't be here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT)