Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Lack of ongoing significant coverage. RL0919 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Suicide of Katelyn Nicole 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)

This article was speedily deleted per WP:G4 in view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Davis. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 8 there was no consensus about whether this was correct, so we're at AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Sandstein 07:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Censorship isn’t going to help reduce suicide rates. It’s a problem and we should talk, spread awareness about it, not hide from it, because it happens more often than someone would think. It’s the reality, whether we like it or not. Nterix (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much every policy reason given at the original AFD was wrong or at least dubious: WP:BLP1E means you name the article after the event, not the person (which has been done), and is not anyway primarily a delete rationale. The assumed legal problems with this article do not actually exist, neither in the US nor in the EU. There are questions about the persistence of this story but no doubt that it was widely covered at the time, so saying that it fails WP:GNG is at least questionable. So why am I still voting delete on this? Because I support USER:Collect's viewpoint that it is simply irresponsible to maintain an article on this subject so we should WP:IAR and delete. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's "irresponsible to maintain an article on this subject" or that it might "encourage similar events" seems to be poor reasoning, or at least it sets a bad precedent. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Should we delete the article about the Columbine Massacre because it might encourage school shootings, or delete the article about Nazism because it might encourage genocide? Wikipedia articles are factual and non-sensational. Now, it is true that if this article were written in a tabloid like manner (it's not, but let's suppose it were) then that would be an issue to correct. However even that wouldn't be an argument to delete the article, but rather just to correct its phrasing. But about your concerns, Katelyn's livestreamed death did encourage Facebook and others to improve detection and reporting, so it's not likely that a similar incident will ever happen and go viral like this again. Unlike the various other Category:Bullying_and_suicide deaths, this is truly a unique and noteworthy one-time event. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject, while meeting WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only references to this individual or event after the immediate period are in passing when news articles discuss similar occurrences. Some have noted this is borderline, and though I dispute this I will note that as a sensitive subject I feel we should err on the side of not notable in such cases. I will also note that while I sympathize with the concerns brought up User:FOARP and others, AfD is not the place to be writing policy; WP:IAR should only be called upon when there is no clear rule to deal with the situation and should not be used to overrule existing rules, and I will also note that Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, and thus while this is a sensitive subject, and a part of me agrees with you that this sort of article would be best off Wikipedia lest it encourage similar events, a decision based on this would not be in line with the goals or spirit of Wikipedia. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to meet WP:SUSTAINED too, which says "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". Here are some later appearing examples:
  • [1] was published shortly after the event. [2] only mentions her very briefly and does not support the assertion that the case influenced Facebook policy. [3] indeed looks like an unreliable source. The books are better but still devote very little space to her and only mention her to give a specific example of a wider topic, which suggests to me that we shouldn't have a standalone article on the topic. We don't have an article on the heavy metal band so I doubt they're exactly well known. Hut 8.5 07:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as originally indicated, with the same reasoning. Collect (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that what's notable is the topic of Facebook and its responses to suicide (live-streaming of, or posts about suicidal intentions). This young woman's suicide was one instance reported in media which urged Facebook to change its policies (eg this Guardian article [4] which quotes a Facebook response less than 2 weeks after her death "We’ve reviewed the share you reported for showing someone injuring themselves and found that it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.") This ABC News (Australia) article in mid 2017 [5] discusses Facebook's policies in regards to suicide without mentioning this particular suicide; this article, also mid 2017 [6], discusses another suicide livestreamed on fb, which fb did remove but 6 hours afterwards, by which time it had been shared on other platforms; this New York Times article from December 2018 [7] is about Facebook's new practice of reporting of suicide attempts to emergency services. So ideally, I would say Merge the basic details of this article to an article about eg Facebook response to suicide posts. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Facebook have nothing to do with this. It is “Live.me” application. It was uploaded on Facebook later on, but we cannot blame on its policies because of user’s fault, so merging article to Facebook is not the greatest idea, when original suicide video was live streamed on other platform. I removed from article Facebook (somehow I did not notice it). Nterix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. The topic of Child suicide is certainly notable (I'm amazed to see that's a redlink), but individual ones are not, regardless of the amount of sensational press they generate. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that an event got significant coverage during a short spate of media interest does not mean we can have an article on it. For that it needs to have sustained coverage. The only source cited in the article which was not part of the initial flurry of media interest is an article published by an Irish tabloid five months later in which it is briefly mentioned, this is not evidence of sustained coverage. In the linked DRV discussion there were a couple of links to books which mentioned it in passing as an example of a modern social phenomenon, I don't think that's sufficient either. I'm happy for the topic to be covered as part of an article on Facebook and suicide or suicide and the internet but we don't seem to have such a thing.
    There is also a serious BLP concern with the article. It makes several very serious accusations against living people. While it doesn't name names any more it is clear from the wording that only a few people could have done what is alleged. Per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't be doing this in the absence of a conviction. The article does say that the police opened an investigation into these accusations, but it doesn't say what the outcome of it was, presumably because it's too low profile to be reported. As a result the suspicion of guilt is left dangling in the article indefinitely. Hut 8.5 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't making any accusations. It's merely repeating points that other secondary sources have reported about. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say that you MUST exclude accusations, but rather that editors should consider not mentioning them, or at least be careful in their wording, since it's indeed a sensitive matter. At any rate, the accusations aren't relevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted. We can easily remove or rephrase the sensitive parts of the article. Note that there has been an actual conviction related to this case, which happened recently so it hasn't yet been added to the article. <redacted per BLP> Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Hut 8.5, I would like to ask you as an administrator with many years of experience, to let us know how could we change the article to meet WP:NOTNEWS requirements, because it was already edited many times by different editors and somehow it is still not good enough.
    In my perspective, it meets provided requirements, so if you could, please help us to understand what kind of words or sentences do we need to replace, it definitely be more helpful than voting to delete the whole article. Or is it because of provided links? I did not quite understand. I personally don’t find WP:SUSTAINED valid, since it got many attention and still attracts people’s attention. Nterix (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a case of editing the article. We don't delete articles because of the wording of the article can be improved, in the vast majority of cases. The problem here is with the subject of the article, and if the objection is valid that means that any other article about her would have the same problem. The best way to refute these concerns would be to point to reliable sources which devote substantial coverage to the case and which were written some time after the events. That would show that the event has had lasting impact. Alternatively you could point to some other way in which the case has had lasting impact, such as legislative changes it led to, but we would need specifics and supporting reliable sources. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You just accused a named living person of driving a young girl to commit suicide, with no supporting sources at all. (Your link doesn't even mention Katelyn Nicole Davis). If that's your BLP standard then you absolutely should not be editing BLPs. The BLP policy applies here as well as in the article. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but just pointing out an actual conviction related to the case (even if it's not a conviction directly ABOUT the case). <redacted> My point here isn't to say that some form of this information should actually be added to the article, but rather that it's an aspect of the case that editors should be aware of. The whole "online dangers to children from potential predators" is another point around the event that has attracted attention to it, and can give people impassioned opinions about the case. I agree with you that it's important for Wikipedia to be strictly factual and held to the highest standards. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are many other youth suicide pages similar to this one on Category:Bullying_and_suicide. There are also other filmed suicide pages such as Suicide of Kevin Whitrick which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive its own [deletion proposal]. This page should exist because it's a high profile event in both categories: A unique case of a youth suicide that was filmed, and which literally millions of people saw on social media. (Technically, that makes this the most watched suicide in world history.) It seems unusual to focus upon and delete the page for this iconic event in isolation, outside of a larger Wikipedia policy or process that also considers the less notable events. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Visit the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick. What does that article have that this article doesn't have? Katelyn Nicole Davis was much more reported on local, national, and international levels, and affected the literally millions of people who saw her death video before Facebook and other social media were able to get the upper hand. This isn't an obscure topic. Today there are 35 separate groups about Katelyn Nicole Davis on Facebook while there are 0 about Kevin Whitrick. In May of 2017, Wikipedia page info said Suicide of Katelyn Davis received over 21,000 page views in the past 30 days. That's much more than the other lower profile Category:Bullying_and_suicide pages (and the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick has had just 650 in the past month). A general Google search on ""Katelyn Nicole Davis"" returns 140,000 hits, while searching ""Kevin Whitrick"" returns only 5300. I know Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest, but this is a high profile topic that shouldn't be so quickly discarded. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism#Arguments_against_deletion says, "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship." Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Katelyn is notable in that she live streamed for the entire month leading up to her death. The amount of video she shared is comparable only to the likes of Ricardo Lopez, the Bjork stalker, who has a wikipedia page. Unlike Lopez Katelyn longed for connection and understanding. She is a person worth learning about, so I vote for this article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.205.15 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — 76.94.205.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Indeed, unlike the other youth suicide articles on Category:Bullying_and_suicide, this event is noteworthy not only because Katelyn's actual death was virally viewed online by millions, but beyond that she recorded much of the last month of her life. The result of the 30 or so hours of footage leading up to her actual death is a one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset. If somebody can locate a source that goes more into the psychoanalysis aspects of the case (like https://extranewsfeed.com/what-america-should-learn-from-live-streamed-suicides-aba2c5b754e4 but from a WP:RS) then that would be a quality addition to the article. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the 30 or so hours of footage leading up to her actual death is a one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset - if that was the case then psychologists would have written about it and this discussion would not be happening. Hut 8.5 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologists may have written about this point, and editors just haven't located and included those sources in the article yet. Either way, the extensive recording of the last month of her live (culminating in the suicide video itself) is just one more noteworthy aspect of this event. The case for keeping this article gets stronger over time, especially now that it's getting referenced in published books. Also, Katelyn's death is having influence upon popular culture, such as her final words being used in videos by death metal bands. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN8zSTG35u0 Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue on the basis of sources then you need to actually show that those sources exist, not merely hand-wave. I've just done a Google Scholar search for the subject and didn't find anything written by psychologists at all. The best I could find was a passing mention in a Polish article about dead people on the internet, which gave her one sentence along with several other examples. Frankly I'm not surprised at this, mental health professions must spend a lot of time interviewing suicidal and depressed people in professional contexts and I can't see how a few YouTube videos made by one would be that valuable. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Psych Central has this about the event written by a Doctor of Psychology: https://psychcentral.com/blog/outrage-over-katelyn-nicole-davis-video-suicide-misses-the-point/ - It even includes a snippet from Katelyn's extensive video archives embedded within it. Although this particular article doesn't emphasize the video archives as a resource, it does go into other psychological aspects of the case and how events like this can hopefully encourage better mental health funding, especially for people in poorer areas. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blog post and therefore not a very good source, and most of it is about the general phenomena of shocking videos being posted on the internet and lack of suicide prevention rather than about the subject matter. If it really is a "one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset" I'd expect a bit more than that. Hut 8.5 22:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this article creator, I strongly believe that it should not be deleted.
    English is my second language, so I apologize if my statement below is too short or not valid.
    There are many similar articles about suicide (as previously mentioned by user Cruiser1) on Wikipedia. Why all of sudden, Katelyn Nicole Davis cannot have a Wikipedia page? People have the right to know what happened to Katelyn, her story may change someone’s perspective in a positive way and spread awareness about children suicide. This is Wikipedia overall. Sincerely, Nterix (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s hypocrisy. Many suicide articles are similar, you just have to spend some time by comparing them with each other.
    Of course, circumstances will be different, but that difference is small. If you want, you can always find a reason to delete things, since Wikipedia has too many rules. But what difference it will make? Nterix (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't decide these cases by comparing the article against other articles which exist. We decide each case on its own merits. You also can't assume that just because Wikipedia has an article on something that means we've taken some sort of decision to allow that article. Hut 8.5 20:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Katelyn Nicole Davis case is not usual, it is similar to the show “13 Reasons Why”. She recorded her life and the last days, if you do watch her videos, you would learn more about her and how kind-hearted she was.
    When Katelyn needed help the most, she still wanted to help others, who also may be struggling and thinking about committing the suicide. She was forced to mature too soon because of living conditions, family, didn’t had any friends and experienced bullying in school, felt lonely (that’s why “Live.me” application became a part of her life), but Katelyn tried her best to not give up, do not let “demons” win.
    On December 30, 2016 — something really bad happened that pushed her to end her own life. Other reasons also had an impact on this final decision.
    So, it’s more complicated than you think. Her story is unique and able to spread awareness about depression, loneliness, bullying, abuse and etc.
    WP:10 year test is not valid, since suicide will always be a big issue in society. Nterix (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article serves a useful function, but it does so in a very substandard way. The references contain only a passing mention after the event, and I found nothing on Newslookup trying a search. The problem is, most of what is useful in the article could genuinely be held in a paragraph. Exception being her motivations -- she apparently accused her stepfather of rape, but I see no way to follow up on whether that was viewed as credible or was simply a parting cruelty by a disturbed child. I mean, it looks like we're building half a bridge here. It's not really our job to lob a grenade like that at the dad and then not even be able to see if it goes off. Now to be clear, I absolutely think we should have Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis point to some target article, and the article should name her, and it should link to this archive of videos and describe the basic facts of her case and cite some of the other useful references. But the same article could fit dozens of other cases comfortably, and the most interesting and useful parts of that article will be about stuff like Facebook's policy decisions that have nothing to do with any of them. So I say make that article and get this stuff moved into it and cross-link the other cases and do this the right way. But if you don't do that, I'm up in the air on a straight keep-vs-delete call. (I am, however, absolutely clear on the "IAR we must censor because think-of-the-children if people thought about suicide" argument being absolutely deplorable. I don't know if putting up posters about suicide in colleges is really a bright idea but I've seen them right by the elevator -- I wish the numnuts would decide whether it is evil to talk about it or not to talk about it) Wnt (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there already exist some compiled pages similar to what you suggest above. For example, see "List_of_suicides_that_have_been_attributed_to_bullying" (which currently contains 22 other suicides). However, it appears that in order to be listed on that page, the individual suicide needs to also have its own page. Katelyn's death seems to be at least as notable and has enough supporting sources as they do. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That article differs from what I'd like in that it is a simple list and doesn't discuss the broader context in prose. There is a difference between listing as many bullying-induced suicides as possible and describing how suicides affected social media policy. As a list it is a hard thing to manage because it aspires to list every suicide by a certain cause, and the cause is apparently (according to the talk page) disputed, so it imposes an excessive certainty on events that are hard to research. Still, it is useful and could be a place for something like this. I see a comment in the talk about WP:NLIST, which says that "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)." That second guideline just talks about the usual reliable sourcing policies. So a list article should not require every entry to have a separate article, because that is NOT a policy or guideline, and it is NOT a proper encyclopedic criterion for a list, and if people have been saying this then they are inciting people to make new articles when a new section would have done just fine, and creating an unnecessary need for processes like this one. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: wild claims and snide remarks ——SerialNumber54129 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is an ongoing social media hate campaign against this tragic ~ Girl,s ~ Family. Over the past 2 years the bereaved Mother and Her 2 young children have been pursued in real time. The original Wikipedia page had many unsubstantiated accusations and it contained many links to Youtube and Facebook where the sources of this unique case of generational bullying was, and still is , located. The contributor cruiser 1, who is fighting so hard to maintain a profile for this tragedy... (AGAINST the expresses wishes of the family)is fully aware of the actual real life damage. Tammy Michelle Rogers, ~ <redact BLP> I have been directed to an article about Righting Wrongs. I stand firm in my moral commitment to removing media that will draw attention to an easily accessible Suicide Video. Which I have seen, 12 days after it was made and it almost killed me. I have no doubt it has claimed lives. It is a suicide trigger. And ALL this media has glamourized what is,in essence a PRIVATE tragedy. I do not, however cite the morality as my complete reason. The social media hate and recrimination campaign has made money for unsubstantiated and sensationalist "reporting". I do not believe that Wikipedia embraces the spread of false information nor would want its reputation for finding and presenting truth and fact to be tarnished and devalued by becoming a source for such ignoble undertakings. Nor being used as a weapon to further enhance a real family,s pain. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you are spreading false information and lying. Katelyn mother’s property was not damaged. She sold her house and kids were taken away for safety reasons. “AGAINST the expresses wishes of the family” — do you have any evidence to support your claims? As far as I know, from Katelyn’s family no one complained about this article’s creation.
    What you call “social media hate campaign” are Facebook groups in memory of Katelyn Nicole Davis. These groups never made any money and they don’t spread hate, just seeking justice through awareness.
    See WP:NOTCENSORED. You want this article to be deleted for your own personal reasons. Also, please don’t remove anything from the article without a valid reason. Nterix (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HER KNIGHT and Nterix: Would the two of you please cite your sources? WP:BLP applies to this page, and this stuff is highly contentious. Besides, if we had reliable sources for claims like that with followup on this case, we might not have to delete the article, and we might be able to do a fairer job for the family than a random Google scoop of old newspaper articles. (On the other hand, if you're just posting local hearsay or claims written by random Facebook users, please stop doing that - Wikipedia isn't the right place to put up unsubstantiated gossip) Wnt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources are reliable or relevant. One of them did not even provide a link to their source and the other I can't even see. The first link did not even provide detail info or any relevance as to why this article should not be deleted. For sensitivity purposes, could someone please hat the above claims.Tamsier (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_of_Katelyn_Nicole_Davis&oldid=881092395"