Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael (2nd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Suicide of Nicola Raphael

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael
• Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael (2nd nomination)

Suicide of Nicola Raphael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article was deleted at its first AfD on the grounds that though a tragic event there was no evidence of the lasting effects required by WP:EVENT. It has now been reposted with an additional paragraph saying that the school and the local authority have said that they will review their anti-bullying policies. Announcement of a review is the normal reaction of any organisation to fend off criticism, and it does not seem to me that this addition is significant enough to overcome the reasons given for deletion at the AfD. The new version was tagged WP:CSD#G4 and in my view it qualifies, but I am sure that a G4 deletion would be challenged at DRV, which would probably say that the article should be relisted, so to save time I bring it straight back here. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron.WikiuserNI (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Also new info that the documentary about her story/organ donation got a peabody award after being shown pretty widely including bbc america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.204.253 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article linked to at [1] says "Last year as part of a BBC documentary, the family met Rona, the mother of Jack's donor, 16-year-old Nicola Raphael, who committed suicide after being bullied by classmates." Dream Focus 06:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep A major news paper now appears in Google news search that wasn't there last time. [2] That added to the rest, should prove notability. Dream Focus 06:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  Where is this in Google News? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  Suicide of Nicola Raphael and just the words "suicide" and "Nicola Raphael" get more results.[3] Dream Focus 09:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's "What's in a name" article doesn't really say more about the article subject than that Raphael's death is "the latest in a long line of high-profile children's suicides attributed to bullying". I'm not sure how that's sign of a long last effect.

Also, a drive by Google News search isn't terribly indicative of anything in particular. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

She is getting news coverage in articles years later. If her case didn't have lasting effect, they wouldn't keep bringing it up all the time. Dream Focus 06:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it significant coverage? She's name dropped along with many other unfortunate people. Mention might certainly be made in an article on any anti-bullying efforts. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete — it is a G4. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, states: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..." More news coverage has been found, and the lack of it is what caused it to be deleted. So G4 does not apply. Dream Focus 09:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  per nom && U can haz file:badgering.jpg ;) Jack Merridew 09:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  The article was deleted at the first AfD not for lack of news coverage, but because there was no evidence of any lasting effect. The fifth bullet point of the WP:GNG makes clear that news coverage alone is not enough to over-ride WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I have notified of this AfD everyone who commented at the first one, or contributed substantially to either version of the article. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete — indeed a G4. A collection of additional trivial and irrelevant material does NOT lead to a substantial alteration. Yours, Mootros (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

your origan reasoning was: "Delete boarders on resentism. Utterly unencyclopaedic. Mootros (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)" the article was altered after that to have more neutral wording and given balance/positive outlook from the organ donation campaigning etc. the alterations were done after your first statement but before the first article deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.163.193 (talk)

Yes,thank you! Plus still : Delete borders on resentism. Utterly unencyclopaedic. Mootros (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Mootros. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:G4. It's the exact same article with the addition of some quotes from a 2001 mention about a scheduled local review. Still no demonstration of significance. Still fails as WP:1EVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete classic and obvious G4. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As well as wide coverage of the events themselves this article over a year later http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2002/bullyinghitshome.aspx in an american based website (which at that point was also a printed publication) shoes that the the story has gained enough significance/influence to be used as one of many sources/references in an article on linked issues.RR1953 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - "Lasting impact" means that the event is the precursor to another notable event. A single-school review of bullying policies is not a notable event, in that it would not sustain its own independent article. Article still fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - for the reasons outlined by JohnCD, CactusW and DustFW. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - As per previous concerns, not enough evidence to say there is a significance to the event. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per the previous AfD. Article is sufficiently similar to the previously deleted version. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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.