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 speedy keep. This is an article that was discussed and closed yesterday. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Tyler Clementi[edit]

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

This is a tabloid news stopry masquerading as a biography. The suicide is slightly less than a nine-days wonder, the individual concerned is of zero notability other than for the suicide, a redirect to a suitable section in context in an article on gender politics in the US education system would fit with policy in a way that this does not. The entire thing is just a spontaneous howl of outrage; Wikipedia is not here to immortalise moments of righteous anger. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, maybe you are unaware that this article already went through an AfD that started 1 Oct 2010 and ended yesterday. Re-nominating an article for deletion one day after it its last AfD ended seems a bit extreme. Please consider withdrawing this AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this just survived an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi, why did you bring it back so soon? Yoenit (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - did you miss the previous discussion that concluded just yesterday? It seems hard to miss the large notice at the top of the article talk page. I find the nomination itself to be non-neutral and possibly of a tone to be deliberately offensive. A clear failure to consider the guidelines of WP:BEFORE. Tabloids have featured the story, so have many other reliable sources; it cannot be rudely dismissed as a tabloid fabrication. This has been a major topic of discussion, it is not neutral to describe it as a "nine-days wonder". The phrase "spontaneous howl of outrage" is rude and appears to be deliberately intended to offend anyone who has worked to verify the article or contribute to its creation and previous discussions. I suggest such text is struck from the nomination or this AfD deleted as disruptive. Fæ (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Comments are not struck from AfD by others unless they are extremely disruptive, and that is clearly not the case. Guy has a right to an opinion on the article just like yourself and everyone else, and frankly your comment here was extremely uncivil. The AfD was under a different name, and the "large" notice at the top of the talk page is approximately 80 pixels high; it's easy to miss the prior nomination. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non notable biography. Non notable event. This is an encyclopedia for god's sake. WHen are people going to realise that we are not a newspaper and that not every single newstory of the week is eternally notable. What is so notable about a gay college boy who had his privacy taken away from him and felt so embarrassed that he jumped off a bridge? Its a sad newspaper story at best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the previous extensive deletion discussion. This is not a biography but an article about invasion of privacy, a legal prosecution, extensive international media interest and a suicide that might have been the result of cyber-bullying. Fæ (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article includes extensive reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that this event is notable beyond the single event. The scope, breadth and continuing nature of this coverage all establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article covers the death of a non notable person. Per WP:BIO. This death is no more notable than any other death. All deaths receive a certain amount of news coverage, but I fail to see why this one is notable at all.Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: recently closed as keep; this should go to DRV if the result is contested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- If you disagreed with the close yetsrday, DRV is thataway ----->DRV. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of the previous nom and this was renominated so soon. Looks as if the consensus was a clear keep as much as it pains me to think so. This should not have been renominated within a day of closing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to the recent closure of the related AfD as a snowball keep. In the absence of that, I would still recommend keeping the article due to the breadth of coverage. Remember that the topic is the death of the person, not the person himself. Since there are two criminal cases pending and new pieces of legislation being drafted as a result of the suicide and events that led up to it, this is a notable event on the order of the suicide of Megan Meier. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This just closed with a snow keep. Returning it to AfD is disruptive, in my view. The correct procedure is to make an appeal to Deletion Review. —Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.

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.