Suicide of Katelyn Davis

Suicide of Katelyn Davis (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)

Classic WP:BIO1E with horrendous sourcing (dailymail, youtube etc) and BLP issues (charges of sexual abuse etc).

No reliably-sourced indication that the sad event had greater societal ramifications (such as change in some law, or practice) that would make it notable enough and amenable to encyclopedic coverage. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being the only socially responsible action possible. The person did not in any way meet notability guidelines, was under 13 years old (noting the presumption of privacy provided by COPPA, which specifically addresses online use of such information, and thus might fail under US law. No continuing coverage either. BLP1E also applies. Not even noting the fact that such "reportage" is barred by many countries, including the EU. Collect (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E, a minor child, BLP violations regarding the family, don't want to encourage copycats, potential legal issues, and need I go on? Just let this poor soul rest without having all the worst parts of her life memorialized here as though that's all she was.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main reason is the soft sourcing, not concerns about copycats etc. Any subject can be covered on Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED, but this article has always struggled to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. The case became notable because Davis livestreamed the suicide, but this in itself does not warrant an entire article. The claim by Collect that "such reportage is barred by many countries, including the EU" is dubious because British newspapers reported the incident: Mirror Mail Sun. Invoking COPPA is also dubious because the US news media is not stupid and would have checked this before reporting on the case. There is no obvious COPPA violation in reporting the suicide according to reliable news coverage, eg here in The Independent, which is a good British newspaper regularly used as a source on Wikipedia. There has been a lot of armchair lawyering over this, but the WP:GNG issue from the overall sourcing is the real problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ianmacm: the sources do not satisfactorily assert notability, and the fact that more reliable sources have not taken up the story even though they (certainly legally, probably ethically) could, should speak volumes. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]