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 WP:SNOW keep. As it stands, after some 60 comments with a ratio of about 5 "keep" to 1 "delete" opinions according to the automated count, it appears very unlikely that this discussion could even after seven days result in anything but in a consensus to keep the article, and a consensus to delete appears inconceivable. The discussion is therefore prematurely closed. Whether the article should be renamed, and how, can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Renominating the article for deletion some time after media and public interest in the case have waned and its notability in the light of WP:BIO1E can be more comprehensively assessed remains a possibility, if there are still genuine notability concerns by then.  Sandstein  19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leelah Alcorn[edit]

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))

Leelah Alcorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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. StAnselm (talk) 04:41, 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. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account contributions presently total 13. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2015 (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. StAnselm (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 - I'd agree that renaming to Death/Suicide of... is a good solution, but let's delay a speedy AFD until things settle. Hemsath (talk) 23:24, 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. - hahnchen 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]

With respect, Prokaryotes, I think you mean 'perverse' - an adjective meaning something like 'unreasonable' - not 'pervert', which is either a verb meaning 'distort' or a pejorative noun meaning 'deviant'. Given that you're voting 'keep', I imagine you would wish to avoid the latter implication in particular. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (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]

I have to disagree with you. The argument in favor of keeping is more than a few news stories and potential for impact. The impact, even this soon after the event, can already be seen. Already legislation is being lobbied, and marches are being organized. The intent of the article is not to memorialize Leelah, nor is the intent to right this wrong, as that's not possible. The intent is to document a notable event. Coffee joe (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply -- for an obvious reason. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:49, 1 January 2015 (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 — 108.180.193.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• 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) — 75.143.227.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.138.174 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2014— 49.183.138.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, sources indicate notability, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per articles indicating mainstream notability. Additionally, ulterior motives for the article's deletion on the part of the user WWGB have been demonstrated on the talk page of nominating user StAnselm. The disparaging comments made concerning the "weeping" of those voting to keep are included therein under the heading "Too soon?" would seem to indicate bias on behalf of the parties requesting deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:102:79F0:DC21:182A:7EC8:73FD (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — 2601:5:102:79F0:DC21:182A:7EC8:73FD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• As much as I disagree with the nominator, I think it is unfair to tar them with that particular brush; the inappropriate comment was made by WWGB, not StAnselm. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair point, however the commentary's place on the talk page of StAnselm could be seen as indication personal bias driving the push for motivation. As WWGB was one of the original contributors to this AfD after the initial nomination was made, and appears to be in communication with its original nominator, I believe that this could be seen as relevant information. This contributes to the appearance of a lack of neutrality on this subject matter, see: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:102:79F0:DC21:182A:7EC8:73FD (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so; WP:AGF is a core policy here, and StAnselm hasn't really given us any reason to think that they have an agenda. WWGB, however, certainly has, and I would strongly recommend they retract that attack statement as being grossly inappropriate. Just sharing the same viewpoint that Leelah/her death is not notable isn't exactly a smoking gun. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The depth of coverage that she has received shows notability. It might be more appropriate to move the page to an article about her death per WP:BIO1E, but that's grounds for renaming the article not deleting it. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 23:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • not really sure what you mean by "depth" - primary sources do not = depth - we need secondary sources to prove notability - you have seen some tell us - i have seen zero.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." In the case of this article, I think it would be accurate to say that the primary source is Leelah's tumblr post, her mother's Facebook post, the actual tweets being reported on, and similar content provided by the people directly involved. Additionally, the death announcement could be considered a primary source, since it is an original material close to the event. However, the numerous sources cited on the article that are focusing on the reaction to the suicide, as well as the suicide note, are not primary sources. Those are secondary sources. In addition, there is no original research being provided on this page. Editors have been trying to add links to Leelah's reddit account, drawing conclusions that were not explicitly mentioned by her suicide note nor any reporting news agency. These edits have been reverted. All information on the Wikipedia page follows Wikipedia's guidelines. - erisrenee (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • erisrenee, that's correct. Being news doesn't make something a primary source. If a reporter relayed his or own experience with the event, that would be a primary source. But news articles that interpret and analyze facts are secondary sources. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of secondary news sources available. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:23, 1 January 2015 (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 is well on its way to qualifying for official White House acknowledgement. This is an historic event in an important area of social change. [[User:Robinmonk| talk 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— Robinmonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry but online petitions are not notable. I am still waiting for that Death Star. Avono (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Death Star? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Many valid points have been made above, and I feel like this could be a very important event in the fight for transgender rights, and therefore it should have an article. However Leelah herself was not in the public eye untill this event. If it turns out to not be as influential as is thought now, it can be removed at a later date. CianMurphy98 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC) — CianMurphy98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. It's the most logical solution. Cognissonance (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article includes plenty of sources discussing Leelah's death and its impact; it's only two days after the fact, and there's already international coverage discussing how her death is impacting the transgender rights movement (which satisfies the need for secondary sources, and rises well above WP:NOTNEWS). It's too early to say what the long-term impact of her death will be, since she only died a few days ago, but by that logic we wouldn't have any articles about ongoing events. (The article probably should be moved to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn, though, based on WP:BLP1E and precedent.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn MameTozhio (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I say preserve the article, but delete for now because there is no guarantee that this will have a lasting effect. Josh Alcorn is not the only victim of bullying that has committed suicide, but if his death will become prominent later, then recreate the article. Yes, his death is tragic. But the coverage from a few news sources isn't notable enough unless he plays an important role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegetaSaiyan (talk • contribs)

I think you mean 'Leelah' and 'her'.AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All three of the major U.S. networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) featured her story on their national nightly news programs on 31 Dec. 2014 as a "top story" of 2014. In addition, all of the news channels in my local market (Sacramento, CA) highlighted it, too. To claims this is NOT a notable news story is just plain incorrect. While it may be an inconvenient fact for some who don't believe that trans people and stories about them are worthy of notability, Wikipedia is a place to document news of all types, not just ones that are in political favor at the time. I am against renaming due to Wikipedia:Articles on suicides, and I think that is the wrong focus anyway. The "human interest" focus of the news articles on Alcorn was all the stuff going on in her life leading up to the suicide and the impact of her life and death. To focus solely on the suicide (which the changed article title would imply) would give short shrift to the full story. —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 01:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This. prokaryotes (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read Wikipedia:Articles on suicides (which I didn't know existed), I now believe this entire AfD is in bad faith, being intended to cause distress for those who value it. The evidence can be seen in the "delete" votes, many of which misgender Leelah Alcorn and use her given name, which, again, seems solely intended to cause distress to other people reading this discussion.174.21.172.56 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have changed my mind when it comes to the move on this basis. Great arguments. Cognissonance (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's too soon to delete over lack of notability especially considering the national and international attention this young woman's death is receiving only two days after her death. It's also very suspicious to me that people who are voting for deletion are calling her "Josh" and referring to her by male pronouns, or saying things like "this is not a place to right great wrongs" or "we'd have to cover every suicide". This young woman's suicide was not the result of endogenous major depression or grief following a natural loss or disappointment--she died because she was abused by her parents and by society due to her gender orientation and she is becoming a symbol for the transgender rights movement, which means...she is notable.Yaeltiferet (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (Redacted) Yaeltiferet (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Already fallen off the front page of Google News. SteelMariner^Talk 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a horrible rationale for deletion, Notability is not temporary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't even earn significant coverage when it was notable. It's sad that a bunch of skeletons have taken over this AFD and pretty much ensured that this non-notable article will be kept. SteelMariner^Talk 03:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'skeleton' is not a synonym for 'activist', or even 'transgender rights activist'. skeletons are a hate group, and many members are transphobic. The skeletons in the Leelah Alcorn discussion were the people trying to do 'callout posts' for a dead 17 year old girl because of her views on certain subcultures (yes, this happened), not the people trying to pass laws and spread awareness. Reddon666 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"skeletons are a hate group" - citation needed! AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really because I just opened my Google news and found an article about her from NBC news. I don't know what Google news you are using, regardless just Google her name and you will find hundreds, probably thousands by now, articles about her. If you are gonna argue for deletion atleast give me a reasonable rationale! JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say give it a few days. If people are still talking about his death in say, two weeks, then maybe the notability factor of this could be raised. Gay/transgender suicides happen commonly, and even though it's a tragedy, there's no reason to think that Josh/Leelah Alcorn will be about as important as say, Tyler Clementi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.52.229 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. As long as the individual/event has passed the general guideline for notability, that's that. No need to have a discussion about whether they're notable or not. Leelah Alcorn obviously has already passed that point. There is no requirement to have ongoing coverage to be considered notable, else we'd have to delete a movie from 2004 because it likely hasn't received coverage in a long while. Tutelary (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the link you guys keep posting, it says: "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." So in a week if, as is likely, it isn't news, I'll re-open the AfD again. SteelMariner^Talk 04:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen more moronic !votes in my time but by far this beats them all - Congratulations you've just made yourself to be a complete and utter dick!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the most moronic votes are among the keep sheep in this thread. "Her story is important and is currently in the process of making history.""She is an inspiration to other trans youth, she could also bring pro lgbt+ change into countries with out any pro lgbt+ resource." Do either of these things even remotely resemble the qualities that are supposed to go into a wikipedia page? SteelMariner^Talk 04:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you jealous or is this related to Transphobia? prokaryotes (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jealous? Yeah, I'll go kill myself right now. No, I'm just wondering why so many people came out of the woodwork to defend an article which has clearly not met notability guidelines. How utterly dull to accuse a dissenter of transphobia. SteelMariner^Talk 04:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above, several users pointed out to you that notability is met, thus your argument is moot. prokaryotes (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, prokaryotes. In one comment, you've just outed your intentions for keeping this article, and it clearly has nothing to do with being encyclopedic. I'm not sure how anyone here can take your comments objectively and/or seriously at this point. 24.191.234.181 (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This discussion possibly comes under the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions relating to Sexology. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute for further guidance. Editors should exercise caution. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the debate is over whether or not his death is notable or not. We haven't decided yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.52.229 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please do not disrespect this individual by using the male pronoun. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article documents a major event that is having a profound effect across social media, especially non-mainstream media such as Tumblr. Leelah's parents are noteworthy for their extreme ignorance of their daughter (not even knowing her age) and the effects reparative therapy has on people, thus she is a notable case study in what can go wrong, and thus her page should be kept here for research and documentation purposes - it appears that this is likely to be a case that will be studied for years to come. StarlitGlitter (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its obviously an important event for the transgender community globally and will remain so. It may make sense to change the title and redirect. Haminoon (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person this article refers to and their passing is not merely part of a social media viral "fad". Thousands of transgender youth take their lives by suicide each year but on this occasion (by virtue of her poignant suicide note and the reaction to it) many commentators are predicting that Leelah's suicide may in the future be reflected upon as a catalyst for social change. Remember please the "Arab Spring" began as a "Twitter Revolution" and that many years ago a tired lady named Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus would not have been considered noteworthy. Keep it moderated and properly academic of course, do not let it be politicized but keep it - Gyxx (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)— Gyxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think Mohamed Bouazizi may have been more important to the Arab Spring than Twitter. Haminoon (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and consider retitling to 'Death of Leelah Alcorn'. This topic has received widespread news media coverage, and appears notable on that basis. This vote was premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but only as - Death of Leelah Alcorn - as I can see it is only a likely suicide at present, the coroner and investigation is not complete yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article from WCPO-TV outright states that a national dialog has begun based on this event, which means that it is in the process of satisfying WP:EVENT. Since the event seems to be the source of notability, then I would support a move. I agree that there are a lot of SPAs who are not voting based on policy, but there are policy-based rationales to keep beyond "righting great wrongs". As long as we keep to secondary sources that describe the ramifications of the event (yes, they exist), we can prevent this from becoming a memorial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has now frankly moved beyond WP:EVENT and WP:BIO1E. The level of media attention now indicates this is not a single event or any danger of this becoming a memorial. The name change may be necessary and I wouldn't object to that. We just need to be vigilant about how the article is written and maintained. freshacconci talk to me 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Death of Leelah Alcorn per WP:BIO1E.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an important story for many people out there. The amount of suffering this young girl had to go through should be enough for her to have the right to be remembered. Plus her memory is a fortress for many people who are the object of extreme prejudice for the most irrational reasons. Diogo sfreitas (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E is policy, Leelah Alcorn meets all three BLP1E conditions: a person (1) covered only in the context of a single event, (2) who was otherwise a low-profile individual, and (3) the single event was "not significant". (1) and (2) are surely undisputed, and (3) is the case because her suicide has not led (and is unlikely to lead) to any substantial changes. The suicide of a child is always sad and shocking, but currently is of little consequence, and transgender suicides are unfortunately nothing new. Of course, if her death does in the future lead to some sort of legislation (not sure what?), protests, or coverage in academia, then the article should definitely be re-created. But I can't see that happening – given the circumstances of her death, she seems likely to be just a footnote in a few years' time. I noticed above someone mentioning the article Suicide among LGBT youth – it could be argued that her suicide is only notable within that wider topic, so perhaps a redirect there might be useful/appropriate. IgnorantArmies 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E only applies to living persons. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn - Leelah Alcorn herself was not really a notable figure, but her suicide was a notable event. Given this, the page should be moved to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn Cam94509 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminder: Please keep comments civil. This is not the place to argue for or against gay rights or transgender rights. Please discuss whether the page meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability, whether the page should be renamed, whether the page should be merged into some other page, or if the page should be outright deleted. Reasons should be based on Wikipedia policies, otherwise your opinion will not carry much weight. Welcome new editors. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the discussion to move the page require a move request? prokaryotes (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and move - Plenty of coverage. Shouldn't be too controversial to close this soon. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2015 (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.