Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident

• Keep or Merge into another article like
  lulz. It was a genuine knee-jerk reaction by 4chan upon discovery of Kenny Glenn's YouTube videos. It's already generated a fair amount of old media coverage and it will probably get more notable as it goes to trial. This blog from Harvard talks about this as an example of "Internet mob justice". Also I'm surprised this doesn't have an article http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chinese_bloggers_pressure_leads_to_kitten_killer_giveup --Piepie (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This is a news story, not an historic case. It may be that the story reflects modern society or says something about what people do with you-tube or how you-tube is used to solve crimes. But wait until someone writes a book about those subjects and decides to incorporate this story to illustrate their thesis. From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to give further publicity to juvenile delinquents who break the law in order to gain publicitity for themselves. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first half of your remark is fine, but we don't delete pages just because we don't like the people they are about. Plenty of horrible people are notable enough for an article, and plenty of wonderful people aren't.
  talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't mean don't write about someone because we don't like them, just don't create articles about nasty people just because they made EyeWitness news in Buffalo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cat break 2

• Delete transient 4chan meme,
  WP:BLP minefield. Might just belong at Wikinews if anyone still cares. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per arguments of Crotalus, and the comment above I do not find to be helpful.--HootlePooch (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Abuse happens all the time. Here today, gone tomorrow. Also, as mentioned above, this is a BLP minefield. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - nobody's gonna care about this a decade, if not sooner, from now. There is also a story about a man from toledo who kidnapped a woman and forced her to wear a diaper as he read the bible to her. Is this deserving of an article too? (I can already imagine the "wikibureaucratic" name now: "
  talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is also the question of the title of this article, which to the uninitiated might seem as if YouTube are the feline abusers. Kevin (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS—Kww(talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS, especially ludicrously ephemeral news such as this. Forget next decade: no-one will care about this next month. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It has been argued that
  general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored. Skomorokh 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep We have Harvard Law and several other reliable sources covering the incident. Of course BLP is an issue. We should make every effort to not ruin the kid's life because of one mistake, but it's doable to navigate the so-called BLP minefield. If it turns out this is later forgotten, we can always delete it then. If it turns out we can't navigate the minefield effectlive, ditto. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be a consensus to keep such articles with much 3rd party mention, even if the issue may well be forgotten in a decade or so (or very much sooner). There was recently a snowfall in the UK which hit Wiki's front page. If Wiki is a repository of the world's knowledge, it could also be an archive of such events, even if there might be some issues with
  WP:NOTPAPER Power.corrupts (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per notability asserted and shown. Then discuss on talk page the possibility of merging this content to abuse sections or either
  Youtube as more viable search terms. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete obviously per Not news Eusebeus (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the notnews/meme/etc arguments. This became an issue only because a bunch of teenagers at 4chan decided to take revenge over it (as a cat person, I was rooting for them, but that's besides the point), and it's the only reason this article exists. Thousands of animals are abused every day, and many of those occurrences are also brought to the attention of the authorities and the perpetrators punished in some way. Yet we don't have articles about those. As a standalone event outside of the intertubes angle, it's completely non-notable at best. And it didn't even turn into a notable meme that I can see. §FreeRangeFrog 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy and others. We're not a news site or dumping ground for 4chan crap. Notability is not temporary, and this is just another flash in the pan. Move on. GlassCobra 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Guy. This is so transient (who remembers the
  Dog crap girl?), clearly not encyclopedic. If people are still talking about it in a year, maybe there's a point. THF (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  For what it's worth, we've got an article on Dog poop girl. As for who remembers her... you clearly do, and now I know about her, too. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that was a bad example because
  WP:NOT#NEWS, even if AfD generally doesn't. I can see discussion of the incident in Internet vigilantism, so it's not like I'm for purging the content; I just don't believe in having all the parallel articles with duplicate content that we have. THF (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - News story. We are an encyclopedia. — R² 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  Whether or not we like it, this is an event that is shaping and defining how we relate to the Internet in the 21st century, partly because of what happened, and partly because it's getting so much attention. A comparable event in a year won't get the same media attention, and would likely not meet our notability standards. For now, this is what it looks like when new cultural ground is broken. Freaky, huh? I don't remember anything in my childhood comparable to "U.S. cat abuser punished by the internet".

  Whenever the histories of the Internet are written, and this event is put into a historical context, then we'll deal with it in those terms, but until then, I think it passes muster. What I don't understand it what would make a kid want to do that to a cat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete: Per Guy, Realist2. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several extremely good secondary sources establish notability. We know that wikipedians are generally biased against 4chan and related trolling sites. Other "newsy" articles with such quality sources would never get deleted. A little less hipocrisy and a little more NPOV please. AfD hero (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above is a completely unacceptable accusation for which I've taken the writer to task elsewhere. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You personally may or may not be biased, but it is a fact that wikipedians on the whole tend to have a
  systematic bias against 4chan and related sites. I'm just bringing up the elephant in the room... AfD hero (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep . Frankly the abuse itself is NOT notable. YouTube probably has hundreds of animal abuse videos, I really don't see the point in this. however, 4chan trolls' admittedly respectable response really began to push this event into being notable. yes, it's sensational, silly, and needlessly immature--but it's a popular event, stealing coverage from notable sources. reluctant keep... Mikey9090 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it made international news. Glad they tracked down and arrested the scoundrel. Dream Focus 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP and protect from deletion again.
  talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And how is that done? I'm not aware of any process that permanently, or even temporarily, protects an article from deletion.
  talk) 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete not every incident of animal abuse reported in the media deserves an article, maybe transwiki to wikinews since wikipedia is not news.Troyster87 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2009 (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.