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. There is fairly clear consensus that this incident has fairly substantive coverage in reliable sources, and thus is basically notable. If those advocating to merge this still feel strongly about it, a merge discussion might be a better venue. Vanamonde (
Talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
'Comment I agree the policy is ONEEVENT, in general, - NOT NEWS and BLP1E are not relaly relecant. my error. But it would seem that the academic work cited deals with this onl in passing, or as an example. DGG (
talk ) 18:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I declined to nominate this page for deletion when reviewing it yesterday. I'm not convinced either way about notability, but there are very clear content issues with the article.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The case can be briefly mentioned in a page on another general subject, such as the
Bystander effect (just as it was mentioned in a couple of books), but it clearly does not deserve a separate page - agree with DGG.
My very best wishes (
talk) 19:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment' I need to admit that I did not perceive some o the general concerns, that might make it more suitable for merging than deletion. DGG (
talk ) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I urge page creator
User:Defendingaa to return and improve the page, which does not adequately describe this crime or its significance.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Sufficient coverage in scholarly literature
[2].
——SerialNumber54129 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - The event has adequate coverage to meet
WP:GNG. It does not violate
WP:BLP1E because the article is about the event. And the article is consistent with
WP:ONEEVENT.
Rlendog (
talk) 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect - to
Bystander effect#Larry Froistad. The only notable part of this tragic filicide is the bystander effect part. There's info at that destination now, but perhaps a little more could be merged, along with the reaction info I just forked off into its own section. On a related note, I do think that Moderation Management should have its own article. I've heard of it and know several people who have participated in the group. Because of the group's leadership's reluctance to turn in Mr. Froistad, this tragic incident would warrant a mention in the article's history section.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Timtempleton:please see this ANI and related conversation. We had reached a consensus on that page that the amount of information previously in the Moderation Management article on related to the death of Amanda Froistad looked
WP:COATRACKish. Without speculating about
User:DGG's intentions, it's very unfortunate that this information can't be referenced in this AfD as it's now gone (he nominated this page for AfD and the Moderation Management page for speedy deletion). The Moderation Management deleting admin,
User:RHaworth either doesn't want to discuss this or is on some kind of wikibreak.
I asked for a deletion review but imagine that will take several days for an outcome. I really don't think this AfD should proceed without that context, but here were are. -
Scarpy (
talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Timtempleton: (sorry for the double dip) if we're talking about notability "outside" of the
WP:GNG, this is notable for reasons other than the bystander effect. It's a high profile case that establishes a legal--and to some extent social--precedent for information that's shared within
peer-run support groups. Plenty of support groups, twelve-step groups in particular, encourage 'anonymity' among members. In meetings guidance is given along the lines of "
whom you see here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." It has encyclopedic value to have reference material showing the legal and social extent to which this is true (or not true). -
Scarpy (
talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Scarpy: you bring up an interesting point, but I'm still not sure that being an example of the downside of the anonymity given perpetrators due to doctor/support group/patient confidentiality sends this into keep territory. I could see how this might contribute some material for a new section in
Self-help groups for mental health#Criticism, named something like "perpetrator confidentiality". Reading this again makes it seem that it's a Venn diagram of themes that can feed multiple articles with short info but in aggregate isn't enough for a standalone article.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Timtempleton: To your last point, there is more than enough
WP:RS here for the
WP:GNG. To your other point, legal cases clarifying expectations of anonymity in cases of perpetrators and non-perpetrators alike are important. Cases like this one set the precedent that in the US there is nothing like therapist-client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Even if support groups encourage anonymity/confidentiality, it's important to have cases showing the extent to which this carries (when in the US is not at all, legally speaking). Depending on your opinion, this is either a feature or a criticism of support groups in the US. (I believe Germany has some laws governing support groups). This passes the
WP:GNG and has other encyclopedic value in the case of peer-run support groups and the bystander effect. This is what Wikipedia is here for. -
Scarpy (
talk) 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as the article's creator. The extensive references unquestionably establish
notability. Keep in mind that this murder is not only notable as being an example of the
Bystander Effect (as a couple delete votes incorrectly state); it is also notable and described in reliable third party sources as being an example of someone dying because of bureaucratic incompetence. For example: Gelles, Richard (2016). The Third Lie: Why Government Programs Don't Work—and a Blueprint for Change.
Routledge.
ISBN1611320526.. I agree that the article currently is, at best, start class, and I hope to have some time this weekend to expand and improve it, but a new article being imperfect is not grounds for deletion.
Defendingaa (
talk) 05:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I have updated the article; it is no longer a stub and is of higher quality than it was when nominated.
Defendingaa (
talk) 02:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you for making that large list of references. With dozens of references from notable sites (news accounts about the death; news accounts about the trial; news accounts about the lawsuit caused by the death; accounts in books about how it’s an example of the Bystander Effect; accounts in books about how her death was an example of bureaucratic incompetence; etc.), I think the article’s notability is without question.
Defendingaa (
talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, because of the non-trivial coverage in reliable sources placed on the talk page. Please restrict the article to reliable secondary sources, rather than primary coverage such as news reports.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Slam-dunk keep, but rename to
Murder of Amanda Froistad as her father was convicted of the crime and thus the M-word can be used in the title. This was notable at the time—I still recall it today and was surprised we didn't have an article on it until now, but maybe given the things I've been the one to start articles on from long ago I shouldn't be. Sources? The New York Times covered it even though it happened way out on the Plains, there is scholarly work on it, because it's notable for people on the email list not reporting it and, in fact, getting mad at the people who did because they violated the list's confidentiality.
Daniel Case (
talk) 00:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Agreed, but moving an article while AfD (Article for deletion) is in progress can cause issues, so I will do this if the article passes AfD.
Defendingaa (
talk) 14:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. BLP1E not relevant as this is on the crime, not the person. The crime has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple books (apparently due to the peculiarities of the welfare system failure, confession in an e-mail list, and details of the crime) over the past 20 years and easily passes
WP:NCRIME /
WP:SIGCOV.
Icewhiz (
talk) 12:13, 24 February 2019 (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.
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. There is fairly clear consensus that this incident has fairly substantive coverage in reliable sources, and thus is basically notable. If those advocating to merge this still feel strongly about it, a merge discussion might be a better venue. Vanamonde (
Talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
'Comment I agree the policy is ONEEVENT, in general, - NOT NEWS and BLP1E are not relaly relecant. my error. But it would seem that the academic work cited deals with this onl in passing, or as an example. DGG (
talk ) 18:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I declined to nominate this page for deletion when reviewing it yesterday. I'm not convinced either way about notability, but there are very clear content issues with the article.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The case can be briefly mentioned in a page on another general subject, such as the
Bystander effect (just as it was mentioned in a couple of books), but it clearly does not deserve a separate page - agree with DGG.
My very best wishes (
talk) 19:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment' I need to admit that I did not perceive some o the general concerns, that might make it more suitable for merging than deletion. DGG (
talk ) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I urge page creator
User:Defendingaa to return and improve the page, which does not adequately describe this crime or its significance.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Sufficient coverage in scholarly literature
[2].
——SerialNumber54129 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - The event has adequate coverage to meet
WP:GNG. It does not violate
WP:BLP1E because the article is about the event. And the article is consistent with
WP:ONEEVENT.
Rlendog (
talk) 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect - to
Bystander effect#Larry Froistad. The only notable part of this tragic filicide is the bystander effect part. There's info at that destination now, but perhaps a little more could be merged, along with the reaction info I just forked off into its own section. On a related note, I do think that Moderation Management should have its own article. I've heard of it and know several people who have participated in the group. Because of the group's leadership's reluctance to turn in Mr. Froistad, this tragic incident would warrant a mention in the article's history section.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Timtempleton:please see this ANI and related conversation. We had reached a consensus on that page that the amount of information previously in the Moderation Management article on related to the death of Amanda Froistad looked
WP:COATRACKish. Without speculating about
User:DGG's intentions, it's very unfortunate that this information can't be referenced in this AfD as it's now gone (he nominated this page for AfD and the Moderation Management page for speedy deletion). The Moderation Management deleting admin,
User:RHaworth either doesn't want to discuss this or is on some kind of wikibreak.
I asked for a deletion review but imagine that will take several days for an outcome. I really don't think this AfD should proceed without that context, but here were are. -
Scarpy (
talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Timtempleton: (sorry for the double dip) if we're talking about notability "outside" of the
WP:GNG, this is notable for reasons other than the bystander effect. It's a high profile case that establishes a legal--and to some extent social--precedent for information that's shared within
peer-run support groups. Plenty of support groups, twelve-step groups in particular, encourage 'anonymity' among members. In meetings guidance is given along the lines of "
whom you see here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." It has encyclopedic value to have reference material showing the legal and social extent to which this is true (or not true). -
Scarpy (
talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Scarpy: you bring up an interesting point, but I'm still not sure that being an example of the downside of the anonymity given perpetrators due to doctor/support group/patient confidentiality sends this into keep territory. I could see how this might contribute some material for a new section in
Self-help groups for mental health#Criticism, named something like "perpetrator confidentiality". Reading this again makes it seem that it's a Venn diagram of themes that can feed multiple articles with short info but in aggregate isn't enough for a standalone article.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Timtempleton: To your last point, there is more than enough
WP:RS here for the
WP:GNG. To your other point, legal cases clarifying expectations of anonymity in cases of perpetrators and non-perpetrators alike are important. Cases like this one set the precedent that in the US there is nothing like therapist-client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Even if support groups encourage anonymity/confidentiality, it's important to have cases showing the extent to which this carries (when in the US is not at all, legally speaking). Depending on your opinion, this is either a feature or a criticism of support groups in the US. (I believe Germany has some laws governing support groups). This passes the
WP:GNG and has other encyclopedic value in the case of peer-run support groups and the bystander effect. This is what Wikipedia is here for. -
Scarpy (
talk) 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as the article's creator. The extensive references unquestionably establish
notability. Keep in mind that this murder is not only notable as being an example of the
Bystander Effect (as a couple delete votes incorrectly state); it is also notable and described in reliable third party sources as being an example of someone dying because of bureaucratic incompetence. For example: Gelles, Richard (2016). The Third Lie: Why Government Programs Don't Work—and a Blueprint for Change.
Routledge.
ISBN1611320526.. I agree that the article currently is, at best, start class, and I hope to have some time this weekend to expand and improve it, but a new article being imperfect is not grounds for deletion.
Defendingaa (
talk) 05:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I have updated the article; it is no longer a stub and is of higher quality than it was when nominated.
Defendingaa (
talk) 02:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you for making that large list of references. With dozens of references from notable sites (news accounts about the death; news accounts about the trial; news accounts about the lawsuit caused by the death; accounts in books about how it’s an example of the Bystander Effect; accounts in books about how her death was an example of bureaucratic incompetence; etc.), I think the article’s notability is without question.
Defendingaa (
talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, because of the non-trivial coverage in reliable sources placed on the talk page. Please restrict the article to reliable secondary sources, rather than primary coverage such as news reports.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Slam-dunk keep, but rename to
Murder of Amanda Froistad as her father was convicted of the crime and thus the M-word can be used in the title. This was notable at the time—I still recall it today and was surprised we didn't have an article on it until now, but maybe given the things I've been the one to start articles on from long ago I shouldn't be. Sources? The New York Times covered it even though it happened way out on the Plains, there is scholarly work on it, because it's notable for people on the email list not reporting it and, in fact, getting mad at the people who did because they violated the list's confidentiality.
Daniel Case (
talk) 00:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Agreed, but moving an article while AfD (Article for deletion) is in progress can cause issues, so I will do this if the article passes AfD.
Defendingaa (
talk) 14:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. BLP1E not relevant as this is on the crime, not the person. The crime has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple books (apparently due to the peculiarities of the welfare system failure, confession in an e-mail list, and details of the crime) over the past 20 years and easily passes
WP:NCRIME /
WP:SIGCOV.
Icewhiz (
talk) 12:13, 24 February 2019 (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.