Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell

removed: "Although school officials did not release her name, she was identified by the Dallas County medical examiner's office."

By the time of the article's writing, she had already been identified; by now, school officials have 'released' her name. This is the kind of copy that is used in day-after newspaper article templates, but not useful in an article like this, long after the fact. +sj+

Gotcha. Thanks! -- Toby Bartels 21:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Older discussion

I know this probably isnt the right way of using this page, but I just want to say to all those depressed people and youngsters outthere who are reading this, that suicide is not the answer. Hang tough and you'll see life is great. And to Sarah's family, my prayers and my heart is with you.

Thanks and God bless you.

Antonio Good Heart Martin

That's a nice thought, Antonio, and I entirely agree with your sentiments. There's a guestbook at the Sarah Marple-Cantrell tribute site (http://www.metronet.com/~cantrell/sarah.html). I think that would be a good place for comments. -- Oliver P. 17:25 20 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Removed comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Sarah_Marple-Cantrell&diff=2848242&oldid=2846785)

From votes for deletion:

• Sarah_Marple-Cantrell doesn't seem to be anyone who warrants an encyclopedia entry. Timo Honkasalo 15:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Apparently she was a twelve-year-old girl who shot herself. I suspect that's pretty unusual, even for Texas (although for some reason there seems to be a dearth of online news reports), and so therefore perhaps worthy of note. -- Oliver P. 16:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree with Oliver. If she was on the news, then she's worth noting. I mean lets face it, we've had people on the news for less important things (read: the woman who claims to have had an affair with President Kennedy). Now, to my business in this page....Antonio Unhibited Martin
  • As about 60% of suicides in US are done with firearms, I see no reason to assume that they are not used by girls. As for the news, only thing Google could come up with was five hits, three of them pointing to same article in dallasnews.com. Local news, that is. - Timo Honkasalo 17:26 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Local news for local people? Well, Wikipedia is for everyone (even local people), and Wiki is not paper so we have room. -- Oliver P. 18:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to Sarah and her family, Wikipedia is not a landscape for honorary pages. Every human death is significant, but wikipedia cannot compile the billions that occur. There exist elsewhere tribute pages for Sarah; those are more appropriate sites for Sarah. The wikipedia article should be deleted. Kingturtle 16:48 25 May 2003 (UTC)

On what actual grounds, though? You've stated that it "should be deleted", but given no actual reason. (The assertion that we can't include every death is irrelevant, because that's not what's being proposed.) Have you read Wiki is not paper? It speaks of the idea of having "a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked", and asks, "Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions?" And it is followed by King Jimbo himself saying, "I agree with this one completely." How is a person less noteworthy than a Simpsons character or a poker game? If you have NPOV concerns, or doubt the verifiability of the facts, or anything like that, then speak, and all will be sorted out. But just saying she's not significant enough doesn't work. And it's not an honorary page, by the way; it's a biographical article about someone who made the news. -- Oliver P. 17:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

With all due respect, what is the purpose of this article? Raising suicide awareness? Addressing gun control? Negligence of the school? What difference does this event make? Why would anyone in 100 years need to read it? Kingturtle 18:02 25 May 2003 (UTC)

No, those issues are to be addressed at Suicide, Gun control, and Greenhill School (linking to School negligence) respectively. This article is just a simple biography of one Sarah Marple-Cantrell. And of course, no-one will ever need to read it. In fact, no-one will ever need to read any article in the Wikipedia. Most people get along just fine without even knowing that the project exists. But it's a nice project, because it gathers together human knowledge. Sarah Marple-Cantrell's life and death are more pieces of human knowledge. And some people might want to read it, whether they need to or not. I expect that in a hundred years' time, Sarah's great-grandnephews and great-grandnieces would be quite interested in it. Anyway, this is all a little irrelevant. Since not deleting something is less effort than deleting something, the relevant question is: what is the purpose of not having this article? Would its absence make the Wikipedia a better place? I can think of some arguments as to why it might, but none seem very convincing. So tell me, how does the presence of this article make the Wikipedia worse? -- Oliver P. 18:32 25 May 2003 (UTC)

1. An article like this sets a precident for having articles about just anyone. The purpose of not having this article is to prevent more articles like it from surfacing. What's to stop me from creating articles about myself, my parents, my friends, my neighbors?
2. Wikipedia is not just a nice project. It is a compendium of information for present-day and future historians. It is a gift to future generations.
3. Sarah's great-grand-nieces can visit the half-a-dozen memorial websites created for her. Wikipedia is not a memorial.

P.S. I fully respect the feelings of Sarah's family. Nothing I say here is against Sarah. I am just opposed to Wikipedia being utilized for memorial purposes. Kingturtle 20:03 25 May 2003 (UTC)

1. Verifiability. Also it's hard to be NPOV about oneself. But if you can overcome that, then write away!
2. I never knew that Wikipedia was oriented specifically towards historians. But future historians may want to research case histories of past suicides, and we may well be around after the Dallas Morning News has purged its archives.
3. I agree that the great-grand-nieces are insufficient. Refer to point 2.

-- Toby Bartels 18:31 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I think this page should be kept. It is well written, neutral, and it is about a notable person. As I see it, one advantage of Wikipedia over more conventional encyclopaedia is that it can include articles such as this, about subjects that people care about. The only criterion I think that should be used in deciding whether to delete an article is is it doing any harm?. Kingturtle thinks it is doing harm, buy encouraging other similar articles. But what would be wrong with other similar articles? ...The fact that they may encourage even more similar articles. This is a circular argument, and I reject it. This is a good, informative, well written article, which may be of use to future historians. We should welcome more in the same vein. Of course we should also encourage people to write articles about people who are more widely known. I notice there is no article about Malcolm Muggeridge yet, for example. If I find the time I may try to draft something. GrahamN 13:44 27 May 2003 (UTC) (Anti-Deletionist Tendency)

---

The Find A Grave page (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=marple&GSfn=sarah&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=7395259&pt=Sarah%20Montgomery%20Cantrell%20Marple&) gives her name as "Sarah Montgomery Cantrell Marple". Is this an error, or is the other name an error, or have both names been used for her? -- Oliver P. 11:09 31 May 2003 (UTC)

---

A Google or Yahoo search will provide numerous cases: "13-year-old girl dies in suicide pact with lover." Another incident, on August 29, 2001 in Singapore, states a 10 year-old jumping from a 5th floor apartment because her Chinese-language grades didn't improve. ref. (http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/01Pf/reut290801.html) I am becoming quite perplexed, yet also educated, by reading the article and its talk page (another reason to let it stand for the time being?). This article raises many issues but lets not overlook the victims left behind who usually become influenced and parasuicidal themselves. May they all be well, comfortable, peaceful and happy. Usedbook 03:12 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

remove the page

This page should be removed.

The problem with its advocates is sentimentality. Certain things in life are sentimental,and these people gets hooked to it, unable to bulge. If wikipedia is to mention a nameless and uneventful 13-years-old suicide, then it's going to include the dman internet and the world's library.

the reasons of the sentimentals is to begin to say things about compassion and good-will and other humane things.

What's the harm? What is the harm if you starts to collect every book possible in your house, or the inclination and encouragement to do so?

P0lyglut 10:10, 2003 Nov 27 (UTC)

when i read an encyclopedia even as wikipedia, i wish to learn rather important things.

i do not wish waste time thru bumping into some unfortunate suicide of some 13 years cute girl. (little girls are attractive at these things, esp the American psyche. If it was a 13 years old boy, likly it won't be mentioned here.)

if i want to learn about little non-events, my local news are full of it.

Xah Lee P0lyglut 21:37, 2003 Nov 28 (UTC)

I can think of far less worthy articles on Wikipedia Crusadeonilliteracy 21:08, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

From VfD: NOTE TO ADMINS: This article (Sarah Marple-Cantrell) was up for VfD in May 2003 and survived. Before deleting, please review the deletion policy. I can't find anything on the policy regarding re-nominated articles. Can article be renominated? I think deletion of this article should be delayed until an already written policy on this issue can be found or we can come up with a fair policy. Kingturtle 00:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point. Please post here where this discussion will be held because I think there are some cases where re-nomination should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged. (For example, did Wikimemorial have critical mass back in May? Would the same people with the same facts about the article reach the same conclusion today?) Rossami 14:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There was no Wikimemorial back in May. In fact, from what I can tell, there still is no Wikimemorial for non 9/11 victims. Anthony DiPierro 17:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I supported deletion in May, and I still support it. But there don't appear to be ground rules for re-nominations. Maybe we should take this to the arbitration committee? Kingturtle 00:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone actually disputing the fact that articles can be re-nominated? I voted keep, but if consensus is reached that this should be deleted (it hasn't been), then the fact that it was nominated before is irrelevant. We should try to reach consensus on the re-nomination issue before just taking it to the arbitration committee. That means discussion, a vote, etc. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In any case, the reason this is being held is most likely not due to it being a re-nomination but due to the fact that there was no consensus (3 keep, 5 wikimorial and delete, 2 delete) and that the majority vote is not possible at this time, since there is no wikimorial for this to be moved to. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I interpret the results as 7 Deletes, and 3 Keeps. The info should be removed from Wikipedia and to another host. That is why I raise this question about process. Kingturtle 01:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually one of the 2 deletes was an extra vote from someone who voted wikimorial and delete as well, so it would be 6 deletes, 3 keeps, which is not a concensus. And what other host are you going to move it to? Anthony DiPierro 01:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Twelve year old shooting herself with a firearm. Kinda spectacular. Enough for the news, enough for WP. See the that page's talk page for more argumentation. BL 03:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • move to wikimemorial and delete.--Jiang
  • move to wikimemorial and delete. Davodd 09:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikimemorial and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - we have articles about notable murder victims, we should have articles about notable suicide victims. I presume all the information in it is verifiable.—Eloquence 10:37, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • If we move it to Wikimemorial, then of course the page should redirect, so there would still be no actual deletion. Thus nobody has to wait for a vote (or a sysops) to get this move going! (I should note that Wikimemorial is not yet set up to handle more than just September 11. So we would have to edit, at the very least, its main page. That doesn't require an admin either.) -- Toby Bartels 07:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see the consistency here. If we allow articles like Carlie Brucia and Samantha Runyon on Wikipedia, why not allow suicide victims who have for some reason received media attention? Someone researching mass media or suicide motives might find the article interesting. The fact that another Wikimedia project is planned that might have some overlap (personally I see a memorial as clearly distinct from an encyclopedia article) is not sufficient reason to start moving stuff arbitrarily over there, just like the existence of Wikiquote is hardly reason to get rid of all quotes within Wikipedia, or the existence of Wikibooks reason to eliminate all procedural knowledge.—Eloquence 07:34, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm not arguing in favour of such a move -- merely explaining what it would entail to do it right (a fair amount of work, but nothing requiring Sysop Superpowers). Actually if you get right down to it ... I vote to keep. Anybody that wants to get rid of it needs to start by making Wikimemorial hospitable to it -- and then bring up the move on Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell. -- Toby Bartels 03:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. wiki is not paper. Optim 20:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Del - there's nothing that makes this inherently more notable or historically relevant than any of the other thousands of suicides each year that aren't memorialized on Wikipedia. Bearcat 09:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are hundred's of thousands of sucides each year. If there MUST be an article, have a 'List of children who have committed suicide' and put her name in it, linking to an EXTERNAL site. Oberiko 16:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Be gone. Cute-girl-loving American cry babies: read an obituary, read Iraq casualties, read 25% HIV in Africa, read deaths out of food. P0lyglut 05:54, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)