Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie McNutt (2nd nomination)

Ronnie McNutt

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. The article has since been renamed to 'Ronnie McNutt death video case' and has been given a new layout to reflect the fact that it is no longer a biography.

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

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

For the exact same reason as the previous AFD that closed earlier this month: This is pretty clearly a person only notable for one event and since that event was their death, they are not likely to be noted for anything else. This was a sad event that sick trolls kept flogging, so I'd add that the victim's family should be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Internet, and Mississippi. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Change Indeed an article about him should not exist because of BLP1E, but I think there should be an article about his death, as it provoked ongoing analysis about the duties of social media companies to cut live stream. Also footage of his death went viral, thus creating sustained coverage.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/ronnie-mcnutt-suicide-tiktok-video-coordinated-on-dark-web/news-story/35039c574db2687a621f5b1e09fbc303
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ronnie-mcnutt-trolls-try-trick-22716338

I have sympathy for his family, but I think their grieving is a result of his death, the people trolling, the people sharing the video, not people talking about that on Wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue keep the page, but monitor it for edits from trolls (note that references to the trolling and cyberbullying is part of a notable social phenomenon and could still be valid references, but fact-check any information coming in). A lot of people only notable for their death have a Wikipedia page, and grieving families. We can keep those pages respectful, as they are notable and deserve to be here, but trolling and spam edits need not apply and should be blocked/removed. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
Comment I think the event is notable, not so much the gentleman himself. Could be redirected to a more appropriate title. Doing my best not to make a pun/comment about what happened to him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but if not, rename to Ronnie McNutt death video case Because of the great harm that can come by not following BLP1E, I think it is better to be safer than sorry when it comes to thee things. Regardless, the article is about his death and not him, so the article title should be changed to reflect that. I will note that the article that was deleted had more info about his life and was more focused on him, while the new article is more focused on his death. Rlink2 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename His suicide and its aftermath received an enormous amount of coverage and attention; he himself did not. The article should reflect this. Additionally, any personal details about him which are not directly related to his suicide, such as what church he attended and the names of his family members, should be removed. Mlb96 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, KEEP, but rename since the article is about the case surrounding his video on the internet, not him as a person. Is it okay now to move the article to a new title, or is the "to delete or not to delete" question still in the air? PetSematary182 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
Delete WP:IAR & WP:BLP1E for the sake of the family. Problem is that the coverage meets WP:GNG. If Wikipedia had a general article on viral internet/live stream suicides it would be a more suitable place and less prominent than the current article.Slywriter (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous Wikipedia articles about people and cases that are potentially offensive and upsetting to those immediately connected to the victim, but still notable to the point where excluding it would be counterproductive. I don't think WP:IAR should apply here just because the subject matter is uncomfortable. There are ways to keep trolls and vandals from screwing with the page so that it doesn't contain false information. As for WP:BLP1E, this was already discussed: McNutt himself is only notable for his death, but the article refers more to the case itself, which was a wide-sweeping internet phenomenon with legal, sociological, technological and psychological repercussions. It would be more appropriate to, as others have offered, just rename the article to "Ronnie McNutt death video case". To get rid of a page for such an influential case completely would make no particular sense and call into question a large number of other Wikipedia articles that exist about similar subject matter. When it comes to "the sake of the family", this is simple enough to respect. Ongoing moderation, removal of information that reveals private information about the McNutt/Newcomb Family, and regular checks for troll posts/unverified edits would reduce any offensive content that the family might object to. This being said, mere mentions that trolling and cyberbullying happened are a part of the phenomenon of the case and, if cited with sources, should be left alone (see similar pages Amanda Todd, Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy). PetSematary182 (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

Article edits

I have done as previous debaters have suggested and renamed the article from Ronnie McNutt to Ronnie McNutt death video case. Because this is no longer a biographical article, I have removed revealing names of his specific family members (especially considering most of his nieces and nephews are minor children), and also his specific church name. If this information is later deemed relevant to the case, editors can reevaluate it from incoming sources at a later date. I also removed a link to the "Ronnie McNutt" Encyclopedia Dramatica because this source cannot be cited unless the page is whitelisted; the Encyclopedia Dramatica page is a notable form of some of the cyberbullying that targeted McNutt in the wake of his death, but it features explicitly homophobic and derogatory language and features graphic imagery of Budd Dwyer's suicide, and would be quite upsetting to many people. PetSematary182 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
Comment: The deciding Administrator will consider how the article has changed since the AfD was initiated. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2022 (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.