Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Meier

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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Meier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A young girl apparently literally driven to suicide. 13 years old. Not to be cruel, but there isn't enough sourcing to meet notability standards, and I can't see the harm in applying BLP1E as a recently deceased person. If this is notable later we can just undelete it, but its not now. • Lawrence Cohen 11:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn The article is significantly better, and sourced now appropriately. • Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Meier[edit]

KEEP - The story is still playing out in the media, and apparently there might be some legislation passed in reaction to the situation. There are also reliable refs used as sources. My feeling is that Afd is a bit premature in this case. Jeffpw (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move this to MySpace/Suicide, delete the redirect and smerge it into MySpace leaving a redirect for GFDL; this is in accordance with WP:BLP1E. The events may be significant as a criticism of MySpace, but not to the extent of permanently memorialising this at the person's name, which is probably then going to be first hit on Google forever. I've seen enough emails from families to OTRS to know that this kind of article causes pain and distress. If it becomes a law then we can have an article on the law. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS? --Kizor (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTRS. Basically, Foundation "help desk" for the public when they have a problem with an article. In this case, the parents are doing the publicizing, so it seems unlikely they would want less publicity. The woman who is the so-called cyberbully may not want the publicity, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Just because a certain website which mocks everything has given you the title of "an hero" is not in itself enough to merit a Wikipedia article - and nor is a short burst of news coverage per WP:NOT#NEWS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who brought up ED? Why bring it into this discussion at all? This smacks of trolling, I'm afraid. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because since the story has not been covered in the UK media as far as I'm aware, ED was the only place I heard of it. Am I allowed to even say that I read ED sometimes?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this discussion should wait for a few weeks. There is no way we can make a good decision on the notability of this right at this moment. It is likely to be national news through the weekend and then a local follow-up next week. Considering the victimized family is seeking this publicity at the moment I don't see a problem with waiting a bit to see if this turns out to have long-term notability. Because it is impossible to determine that today.--BirgitteSB 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. --Richmeistertalk 14:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS PAGE: This is a tragedy of great relevance, and should indeed remain intact and be expanded as the story continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My Blue Cube (talk • contribs)

KEEP - I agree with Jeffpw, this article could still have relevance. It could be incoroporated to the My Space page under the child safety heading. this is a perfect example of chlidren being abused to the point of colapse. if for anything, keep it for a spin off of the myspace page. i guess i can try and find some sources. i also think that we should keep the page because it looks like judiciary action might be taken on the part of those responsible. that is all i have to say. Knowledge lover1123 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, keep this page! This incident is a matter of the "public record" and will be a socialogical study for many years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.124.156 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as this is already focusing attention on the legal aspects of cyberbullying. If it's to be merged it should be to that article, though, since I've seen very little criticism of MySpace in all the hubbub (of course, many of the people in the hubbub probably are heavy users of social networking). There may be some FUD reaction in the "offline" community but we've seen no indication of that. The parents aren't even particularly angry with MySpace given that their daughter was underage for the service and that they apparently were unhelpful with investigating the incident (lack of criminal charges probably being why). They and the public are focusing on the adult woman who instigated this, and why there were no criminal charges. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is relevant as to the ramifications legally and socially. This case is more relevant than that of Anna Svidersky ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article cites reliable newspapers from two major markets. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete - yes there are newssources, because this is news. However, it is not an encyclopedic subject. I've no objection to the information being merged to an article on myspace or internet issues, but it should not be kept as a biography. The girl, in herself, is not notable.--Docg 23:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.  Chantessy  23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the CNN article [1] out in the last few hours coverage of this is going to grow. --arkalochori |talk| 00:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article. The rationale in deleting it (ie not a significant person) is invalid, especially when one considers all of the wikipedia entries concerning individuals who may have been unnoteworthy save for a significant event at the end of their lives(ie Kitty Genovese, Steven Parent, Ron Goldman). I think it unwise to merge it or change the heading to "Death of Megan Meier" (like what has happened with Polly Klaas and Adam Walsh) since her early life plays a significant role in the public interest in this story. You can be certain that Megan Meier will be a noteworthy person in any home with children and/or teenagers in the early 21st century.Remembrance07 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge to Cyber bullying until sufficient reliable and independent cources have substantial coverage of this incident, which appears to be a notable case of cyberbullying resulting in the suicide of a minor. It clearly has more going for it than the average memorial page to someone who died young and tragically. I believe that at least a local ordinance against cyberbullying has been passed as a result, since people were shocked to find it was legal to bully a child into committing suicide. I'm not sure MySpace is a good merge target. Weren't there communications besides MySpace as part of the pattern of bullying? Edison (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The interesting element to me, and the one that got me to copyedit the article when I found it on newpages, was that the subject passed away over a year ago. The reaction has been recent, indicating to me that the individual is indeed notable. Every article I'm seeing seems to focus on who she was, as opposed to treating her as a statistic, which indicates that who she was is notable. The legislative efforts on her behalf against cyberbullying increase her notability. The article may eventually be merged to a "death of" article, or incorporated as a topic under major legislation that comes out of this, such as... well, Megan's Law wouldn't work, but you get the idea. For now, though, I think the subject is notable enough to merit an article. Echoing Dhartung's comment about OTRS and the parent's reaction to the article, I might recommend a courtesy blanking of this debate, whatever its result. I doubt any disrespect is intended here, but it's always safe when dealing with articles on the recently deceased. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (a) the person is not notable and should not have a biography in Wikipedia just because she committed suicide. (b) A mention on cyber bulliyng article or a MySpace related article is all what is warranted (if at all). (c) WP:NOT#NEWS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong recent media reaction good evidence of notability. All evidence indicates that immediate family and close relatives feel that the truth about the events surrounding her death should come out, so the best option for Wikipedia and the most polite, too, is to aim towards a good, NPOV, balanced encyclopedia article. John Nevard (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable implications in a reat many different directs, as covered by the article. DGG (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AP has a story on this already, as does CNN. Ethereal (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's important enough to be a feature on CNN so I don't see why it should be deleted.Crescentia (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are already talking about a new Megan's Law and the man who killed Megan Kanka has his own Wikipedia page. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's wait and see how this story plays out. Now that it's actually getting a lot of public attention, it could potentially have an impact on public policy/"internet law", which would certainly make it notable. I've certainly seen plenty of wikipedia articles more trivial than this survive. Newtman (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could be historic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher D. Marcum (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per BirgitteSB, and out of some shred of sheer human decency. IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say keep--89.27.15.209 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this incident becomes notable enough to receive more mainstream attention than a brief feature on a 24-hour network and/or becomes the basis of some legislation or of MySpace reform, then the details currently included in this article will be relevant to that one. As it stands, I don't see notability yet. Relata refero (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Mergeto Suicide.Although the article is interesting,why make an article about one girl?Maybe we should create an article about people who commited suicide and merge the article into that.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly asserts notability. It was a major cultural event, principally because it was unique and global in news coverage. The article needs work. scope_creep (talk)
  • Keep Ultimately, the question is why Wikipedia would delete articles of significance. Changing the content and making appropriate references is one thing but refusing to host a story of interest is another, much sadder statement.
  • Keep I'm from the UK and when I heard about this (through a YouTube clip of a CNN story) I chose Wikipedia as an (hopefully) impartial source to read up more on the story. Longer term maybe it could be merged into a larger article on "cyber bullying" but for now I would recommend this be kept, because I feel this child's name will crop up more and more when future incidents of a similar nature take place. (EDIT: Forgot to sign my addition) sideiron (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I've been reading up on this story for a few days and thought I'd look here to get a clear and unbiased look at the facts. The story has recieved worldwide coverage as a simple Google search will show (WP:GOOGLE). So I think the subject IS notable. The legality of what traspired has been the subject of much discussion. Anyway, there are dozens if not hundreds of sources that can be found on this subject (Internet, TV reports, newspapers). I would recommend however that this article be tagged as an "in progress" event while all of the facts are gathered. And maybe the article should be renamed since this is about the events that transpired involving Megan but is not about Megan the person in general, and have Megan Meier redirect to that. I'd also recommend against shoving this in the Myspace article as "controversy", since controversy or criticism sections in articles are discouraged. CF84 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I think there is more information to come in this case, I do agree that it should be merged at a future date with another topic. Sideiron made a good suggestion on the destination. Since it probably will be merged into another article I would keep it alive for now so more information can be gathered. Pgrote (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2007 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megan_Meier&oldid=1138070432"