Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leelah Alcorn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 31 December 2014

Leelah Alcorn

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is a classic example of a WP:BIO1E. Although Alcorn "wanted her suicide to create a dialogue about the discrimination and abuse of transgender people" wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Also, even if Alcorn's suicide was notable, the article should not be a biography. St Anselm (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Leelahs' death received international attention and has been reported on thousands of news websites, therefore she is a notable person and the article should remain.
Delete. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that death had any lasting significance on society. Article can always be re-created if that should eventuate. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable event. Alcorn's death and the reaction is receiving coverage in multiple major media outlets (Daily Mail, Rolling Stone, Yahoo News, International Business Times, Huffington Post, etc) and spurring discussion and debate on Twitter. Regardless of whether Wikipedia is a place to right great wrongs or not, this is coverage of an event that came with the motivation to do so. Biographical style issues can be fixed; they were caused by someone removing the 'Reaction' section of the article, a change I plan to undo. Reddon666 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But even if the event is notable (and I don't think it is), that doesn't follow that Alcorn is notable. St Anselm (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what the community determines, the article can be retitled to Death of Leelah Alcorn rather than deleting it. Death of Eric Garner follows a similar pattern of a otherwise questionably notable person's death sparking media coverage and popular commentary. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple independent sources (refs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 are mainstream news sources that clearly meet WP:RS). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems notable enough, per Reddon666 and Scott5114. Maybe it should be moved to Death of Leelah Alcorn though, being primarily about a single event. Too soon to say for sure. Chessrat (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Belongs as an article, whether it's about the death of that individual or the person themselves, the event/person is ultimately notable. Whether to move or merge should be established in a later talk page discussion along with consensus. But in either situation, they're ultimately notable. The nomination needs to take account that we should not rush to delete articles and if they have a bit of good faith, would rescind the nomination. Tutelary (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my !vote, the subject and/or revent meets the general notability guideline, and as such should not be deleted. There's more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. Tutelary (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is her death receiving coverage from multiple mainstream outlets, but legislation to ban conversion therapy has been proposed in her name, and a petition supporting it has been gaining signatures at a rate of, I think, about 10,000 per hour. Her death has triggered more than discussion and media coverage. It has triggered social movement and activism, which makes it a notable event. I would support renaming to Death of Leelah Alcorn. Coffee joe (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is international meat-space activism (https://www.facebook.com/events/758679260876563/?notif_t=plan_user_joined). Can we be done debating notability yet? Coffee joe (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then move it to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Seriously, Anselm, this is one of the worse AFD nominations i've seen in a while. It violates the event expectation of waiting a week before nominating an event for AfD, to see if there are lasting effects or not, not to mention that your entire deletion statement boils down to moving the article, something which doesn't need an AfD to perform. This is an utter waste of time. Silverseren^C 09:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Silver seren, it's only a waste of time if an administrator simply counts votes. If the closing administrator enforces our policies and ignores votes that are at variance with WP:PRIMARY, this will be deleted, because all of the "keep" votes that address the sources are functionally saying "here are all these news stories, so this must be notable", even though news stories about the incident are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd argue that news articles reporting on the death itself are primary sources. However, the news articles that are about the suicide note or talking about the resulting advocacy are not. The suicide note, in that case, would be the primary source. Also while this page is the first article I've edited under this account, I've made numerous contributions to other articles ranging a variety of topics in the past on my old account. I made a new account under my new name when I transitioned, since I too am trans. - erisrenee (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend against move to Death of Leelah Alcorn - this person's notability is not determined solely by her death, as there has been sizable media coverage both of the death itself and of her life proper. See refs 6 and 7, which meet WP:RS and establish notability of her life before her death. Jhugh95 (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. The woman is not notable right now, but the event of her death certainly appears to be. Any coverage of her is always given in the context of the death. If coverage isn't sustained after this initial flurry, then fine, an AfD would be justified; but right now, it isn't. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is also irrelevant here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe notability of this person is not established at her death, persay, but by the resulting coverage and reactions it triggered. While this event may ultimately prove to be a small footnote in transgender relations, I think it still retains enough to stand on its own as an article based on the attention it drew. If an AfD should be pursued in future, I say wait and see what ultimately becomes of this media attention and if it leads to any greater changes/impact in the transgender community and the world at large. (Iuio (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Commenters should remember that depth of coverage is an important criterion, we merely have the same news on the death repeated in several sources. This in an encyclopedia and we have suicide among LGBT youth to cover the issue. Wikipedia is not the news and not a memorial site. Hekerui (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn -- the event has evidently received plenty of coverage and will continue to do so for a while at least, and we have plenty of sources by now. It would be silly to delete it and recreate it shortly after. The event is notable, as these headlines say: Leelah Alcorn suicide note sparks transgender discussion and Suicide of Transgender Teen Sparks Heightened Advocacy for Trans Rights. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that death had any lasting significance on society. Article can always be re-created if that should eventuate. This is a classic example of a WP:BIO1E. Although Alcorn "wanted her suicide to create a dialogue about the discrimination and abuse of transgender people" wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. At the least this perosn had no notability before death and thus the article should be retitled if kept to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. I think this article should not be deleted. Her story is important and is currently in the process of making history. The transgender community has been fighting hate and bigotry for so long it takes a toll on the community. It makes a lot of trans people fear to come out and often that can end in suicide. Allowing Leelah's story to be shared here could make a difference. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— Boomboomwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, but move it to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn since the article should really be more about the event and the reaction to the event than her actual life. However, that brings up the question of other kids who committed suicide, many due to bullying, like Kenneth Weishuhn and Jadin Bell. Wikipedia tends to be inconsistent on this matter. - erisrenee (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— Erisrenee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, the case has been strongly made in this space: Notable event covered by multiple reliable sources, lasting effect given the dialog and legislation on conversion therapy. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come back if secondary sources appear. How many times do I have to remind people that news articles are primary sources about their subjects? It's not possible for secondary sources to exist about this subject! Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.But move to "Suicide of Leelah Alcorn" But should be included as that because it is receiving coverage in multiple major media outlets (Daily Mail, Rolling Stone, Yahoo News, International Business Times, Huffington Post, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickmind (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia and those who run it can insist all they want that Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", but the simple fact is that Wikipedia is the most-used repository for human knowledge in the world, and also the most respected by the majority as an authoritative source. An event of this significance must be given a space on Wikipedia, or else Wikipedia, and those who run it, are nothing less than accessories to the further abuse of children such as Leelah. This information must be available to the world, and the only place where such availability is guaranteed is here, on Wikipedia. If that isn't what you want for your website, make a new website. This one belongs to the world, not you.174.21.172.56 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— 174.21.172.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep for the time being - This is an utterly pointless AFD. It happens every time some event goes viral, the premature creation of an article, and then the premature AFD. Alcorn's death is notable for going viral, we have other articles on viral events, some deserving so, some others probably not. Her death has not yet generated the enduring notability as required by WP:NOTNEWS, and while it may highlight the brokeness of conversion therapy and the prevalence of suicide among LGBT youth, it is probably better handled in those articles. That said, it is utterly impossible to arrive at any conclusion aside from no consensus when there is so much traffic incoming to the article during peak-viral. - hahnch e n 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I'm honestly surprised there isn't a WP tag that amounts to "Let's see how notability plays out" for various current events and people which shuts down deletion but automatically re-initiates it a fixed time after article creation (maybe 1 year?) in order to give time for evaluation. Seems like a WP tool that would be worth having, especially if these deletion debates over current events are common. HCA (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because deleting something for it being viral, isnt entirely plausible reason for washing out LGBTQIA History. There is a lot of information you can get from this. Not only suicide among LGBT youth and conversion therapy but also, the effects of Religious Families on their Children. Among other things. Her death is a profound ripple in the LGBTQIA community. And its so far worth being notable. Its an initiative for acceptance and tolerance. We learn from history and its stories.--OddlyDorkish (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — User:OddlyDorkish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or Redirect to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn per nom: only notable for one event. Avono (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment I would like to vote for Delete, following Wikipedia guidelines for notability and breaking news Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Breaking_news, both the article creation and nomination for deletion are premature. Wikipedia isn't a sounding board for pushing social and political issues, as much as they need to be talked about. Furthermore, notability isn't established by a bunch of news outlets simply rehashing the same story over and over. A good test would be the inclusion of secondary sources, which I could not find. Wikidan829 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Why would you delete this. If is a true story and should be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swinters56 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Swinters56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Apparently the person involved has created massive media attention and on social networks and community sites. Thus, i see no reason why to delete this article, in fact this article is helpful to bring attention to the topic. Disclaimer: I want a Wikipedia as close to the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, as possible - thus deletion is most of the time a big no no for me. Happy New Year prokaryotes (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "This is a classic example of a WP:BIO1E" - No it is not. What is notable here is not the one event of the suicide, but the discussion this suicide generated which are multiple events. In this sense the argument that the article shouldn't be a biography but an article about the events surrounding this suicide has more value - albeit I personally are not convinced the suicide itself is the notable event. However WP:NOTPAPER. We can take our time. The even is hot. This AFD is badly argued and on a bad basis. So keep. We can move it later if that is the consensus then. --Cerejota (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. And shame on the nominator for pointing to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, when certainly no one here would want to include an article for such a reason. Everyking (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources found in the article are but a small part of those that can be found online. There are plenty of articles on people whose suicide sparked a strong public/media reaction. Gothbag (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Seems to pass GNG, and I can only imagine this event will attract even more sources in the future. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page name is just fine, reducing the life mention of Leelah to strictly her suicide is a bit pervert. prokaryotes (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pervert? I really don't think that's the word you're looking for, not that it would be a policy-based comment even if you used something more sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the word - because a person/bio page which are named to just reflect a particular event, instead of the persons chosen name is disrespectful and pervert to per se associate a person with only a tragic event, instead you could make an article on transgender suicide. prokaryotes (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That... is not what pervert means. I'm presuming English is not your first language? It also isn't disrespectful, as we're using the name she chose and referring to her as a woman primarily, exactly how she wished. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are not aware of the many meanings of the term pervert, here i used it as noted to describe a misrepresentation of a peoples life. Also im fine with the page name atm, thus i can not follow your last point. prokaryotes (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But rename to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn, she is only notable for her death and the article should reflect that. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being I disagree with talk on delete an re-create if needed: I think it is far better to keep the article and delete it later when notability does not arise. Re-vote in say 3 month. Krischik ^T 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Every non-SPA argument for keeping the article so far seems to be that the story has generated a few news stories and might have some kind of long-term effect on LGBT issues. Might is not enough to support an article like this one, in either form. The subject is not notable, and wasn't before their death. Wikipedia is not a memorial or the place to right great wrongs. Maybe in 6 months when a valid case can be made for a lasting impact then an article could be put together. So far as far as I see this is already falling off the news cycle. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if for no other reason than common decency. You don't "delete" a person who has just committed suicide from abuse and bullying. Unless you want a political disaster.24.57.218.21 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Common decency" is no reason for keeping an article, or else we can go create a few million articles for every other person that commit suicide. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced, notable, relevant. Skyerise (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could help society go in the right direction. She is an inspiration to other trans youth, she could also bring pro lgbt+ change into countries with out any pro lgbt+ resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.193.131 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2014
Keep For Time Being - As this is currently developing in both culture and society, the notability and impact of her suicide won't be clear for at least a few months. I do think that in some page or sub-page Leelah's story does need inclusion and coverage in some ways. Right now it should be allowed to stay and gather more sources, facts, and impact. Gwenhope (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Gwenhope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - The subject of the article is NOT notable. The only arguments in favor of keeping this are that it got news coverage which is not the same as being notable and that some people agree with his opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.227.147 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 This is a classic example of a [[WP:BIO1E]]. Although Alcorn "wanted her suicide to create a dialogue about the discrimination and abuse of transgender people" wikipedia is not a place to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]]. Also, even if Alcorn's suicide was notable, [[Wikipedia:Articles on suicides|the article should not be a biography]]. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 04:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
+*''Keep'', Leelahs' death received international attention and has been reported on thousands of news websites, therefore she is a notable person and the article should remain.
 *'''Delete'''. Article fails [[WP:EVENT]] and [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. No indication that death had any lasting significance on society. Article can always be re-created if that should eventuate. [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of People-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|<font color="orange">Everymorning</font>]] [[User talk:Everymorning|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 04:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)</small>