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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Patrick Halligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While the fact that this kid committed suicide is sad, Wikipedia is not a place for memorials. Halligan never did anything notable, and was never the subject of multiple secondary sources, at least not any more than any other kid who killed himself, which i'm sure number in the thousands. Google News comes up with nothing, and all the coverage on his memorial website has been trivial, in the context of laws regarding Cyberbullying. The one article in the Boston Globe that looked promising was actually written by his father. Keep in mind that in order for the subject to be notable, he must have done something notable. While his father lobbied to have laws passed, that's not something the kid himself did, and notability is not inherited. Firestorm ^Talk 19:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Google News comes up with nothing" please revise as per my comments below. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article seems to be more than a memorial, in that it covers the aftermath of the suicide, which resulted from cyberbullying, and has a reference which seems to state that the state passed legislation as a result of the incident to restrict the freedom of cyberthogs cyberthugs to bully other children. The "notability is not inherited" argument fails completely when the action of the child (suicide in response to bullying) results in legislation, since the father would never have been involved without the suicide. Every other "Megan's Law" or "Amber Alert" likewise had involvement by family members after the death in getting it implemented, but counted toward notability in a major way in contrast to every other regrettable death of a child. See WP:NOTNEWS. The article's title should reflect the incident and not the previously nonnotable individual. He would have to be supernatural to act following his death and lobby to get a law passed. Edison (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't this be merged, then, to a more appropriate article, such as Cyberbullying? If some of it were merged and redirected into a section of an article that fits our criteria for inclusion, I would have no problem with it. Firestorm ^Talk 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment No,a subject which passes WP:N deserves a stand-alone article. This discussion is about deletion, not merger. Edison (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Yes, I think the article should be merged into cyber-bulling as an example, as he himself did not do anything more notable than others who were cyber-bullied.Captain Gamma (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. All he did was commit suicide, which many people unfortunately do every day. Firestorm ^Talk 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the lobbying of the dad actually resulted in any laws yet? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Yes it is sad he committed suicide, but people do that every day. Maybe a brief mention in the Cyberbullying article, but thats it. TJ Spyke 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete - exceedingly sad story, but notability of its subject does not exist.  Frank  |  talk  09:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep 155 google news articles including the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, ABC News, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, etc. etc. 14 google books also Clearly notable this child is more than a child who committed suicide, he is the face of cyber bulling. Ikip (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those hits seem largely to use the subject of this article as an example of cyber- (or other) bullying. That doesn't make him notable.  Frank  |  talk  16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the repeated use of this instance as an example act to re-inforce the article's notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not sufficient for a biographical article when a mention in another article would be more apt. Collect (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The article has now been expanded, including inline cites from reliable sources. The fact that this case is being cited in legislative debates and school programs in several states, debated in law journals, and reported by published, independent news media makes it inherently notable.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this child's story has been the impetus of several enacted statutes related to cyber-bullying. The story may not have been notable when it happpened, but the lobbying efforts by his father have made the story notable.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as not just one event, but an event and its subsequent repercussions in law and society. Nice job with expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 2 May 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.