Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 17
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sr13 (T|C) ER 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suicide method
- – (View AfD)
This article appears to serve no purpose other than to act as a magnet for people who want to add unencyclopedic "how-to" information, which is a clear example of WP:NOT.
After various editors have now removed this extraneous content, what remains appears to be redundant, since every one of the topics covered seems to be a mode of death (asphyxiation, exsanguination, electrocution, death by gunshot, etc.) which already has its own detailed article elsewhere (or should have one), and a top-level summary of all known methods already exists at the Suicide#Suicide_methods subsection.
I propose that any remaining useful content in this article be aggressively refactored into the relevant cause-of-death-specific articles, each of which should then be briefly referenced in the short list given in the Suicide#Suicide_methods section, and that this article be turned into a redirect to that subsection. The Anome 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
- ???. An AfD is not needed for an aggressive refactoring. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Howso? An AfD is about whether an article should be deleted. All manner of other edits up to and including merging and redirecting are done without needing to go through AfD (not that I believe merging would be appropriate in this case). Bryan Derksen 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Keep it encyclopedic, yes, but putting it into the main article might make it a bit too big. That said, I'm not entirely hostile to an aggressive merge and redirect. I'll keep tabs on this discussion. Abeg92contribs 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep unmerged — Wikipedia is not censored, and deletion is not a substitute for "aggressive refactoring," a.k.a. cleanup ➥the Epopt 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Make as encyclopedic as needed, but merging into Suicide is a ridiculous suggestion when that article is already 40KB - David Gerard 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- See comments above: this article as-is is a compendium of duplicated information that could better be developed in the more specific articles. -- The Anome 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep unmerged—This topic is covered in many reliable sources and is of use to many people, including not only those who are suicidal, but also for writers, parents, etc. DickClarkMises 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I knew this AfD would come the moment I saw the article was on the mailing list. This is an entirely reasonable subject to have an encyclopedia article about, it can be done in an informative and NPOV manner. Merging into suicide wouldn't be a good idea, that article is already very large and too much would need to be cut from this article to make it fit. Renaming to List of suicide methods might be warranted. Bryan Derksen 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This is a perfectly encyclopedic topic, though Bryan Derksen's suggestion of a move does have some promise. Hut 8.5 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up. Could do with some more sourcing, particularly for the individual "methods". Also agree that renaming to List of suicide methods is preferable, it's more clear than the current title. Arkyan • (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. Not censored. Infodmz 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. The content of this article constitutes a threat to human life, and its presence is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Newyorkbrad 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored, and I would strongly contest the idea that any article can kill someone. Articles don't kill people, people do. DickClarkMises 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Newyorkbrad. Sometimes there are things more important in life than keeping uncensored. Sorry, I have a friend that was close to suicide and told me she came to this site to look up information. Part Deux 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Work to change the policy if you don't agree with it. There is nothing illegal about providing this information. To exclude this information for personal reasons is clearly a violation of all sorts of policies, including WP:NPOV. Information is not evil, folks—not any of it! DickClarkMises 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- And again you've missed the point. I just said that there are more important things in life sometimes than upholding an ideal. Not illegal, but not ethical either. And sorry if I'm emotional, but when I have a friend who nearly is no longer here because of the information presented on this page, then yes, information is evil. Would you post information on where Jews during the Holocaust, so anybody (including authorities) could look it up? Part Deux 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those two examples are completely not related. The article is not trying to advocate suicide. Besides, you couldn’t provide reliable sources about the location of the Jews anyway. It would be unsourced and removed as such. I’m not a big fan of the article either (I don’t think it’s written well). If it gets deleted, it should be because it is not a good article not because of moral objections. --Cyrus Andiron 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- And again you've missed the point. I just said that there are more important things in life sometimes than upholding an ideal. Not illegal, but not ethical either. And sorry if I'm emotional, but when I have a friend who nearly is no longer here because of the information presented on this page, then yes, information is evil. Would you post information on where Jews during the Holocaust, so anybody (including authorities) could look it up? Part Deux 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aggressively refactor details of the "mechanics" of the means of death ("Burning to death can take several minutes to several hours...", etc.) into their respective articles, per nom, and (not per nom) restructure other content here by topic rather than by method. I reluctantly accept the need for this page to stop the suicide article from becoming too long, but it should focus on topics like the relative frequency of different methods, differences between culture and time period in suicide methods, etc. A brief list of significant suicide methods at the start of the article would be acceptable, but providing detail on a per-method basis is (a) an unnecessary duplication of more specific articles, and (b) worryingly close to a "how to commit suicide" guide. EALacey 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic topic. Could probably use a rename to "List of suicide methods". --Carnildo 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a how-to manual which has most methods referenced only to other Wikipedia articles. Edison 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aggressively refactor per nom. Lemonsawdust 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as an encyclopedic article about an encyclopedic and notable topic. Merging is not good either, as the best way to present information on suicide methods is to collect it into one page, with {{main}} templates where further information is available. Prolog 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- I think the topic is encyclopedic- although it should be worded appropiately as to ensure if is not a user guide of suicide. Obviously suicide is an emmotive subject, but if appropiately written, it could be a useful article Thunderwing 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep very encyclopediac--Sefringle 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand - needs information on things like success rates for the various methods, differential selection based upon gender, etc. Johntex\talk 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Refactor or Redirect or Merge or all that. The point is, AfD is not Cleanup®. *sigh* I find it highly ironic, but not at all funny on so many levels, that this article, of all things, ended up in AfD just because some people cry for refactoring... =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:NOT censored. >Radiant< 08:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to WikiHow, if possible. ffm ✎talk 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. The licensing doesn't match. >Radiant< 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Forget the licensing, that's the most tasteless suggestion yet. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares if it is "tasteless"? We are here to right a useful, informative encyclopedia. There are notable, reliable sources on this topic. We are not here to decide for people what is appropriate knowledge. It is perfectly "acceptable" for people to want to research this topic. Protecting people from themselves is a job for family and friends, not encyclopedia editors. DickClarkMises 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant was particularly "tasteless" was the suggestion of transwikiing to Wikihow, thus acknowledging that this article is indeed a "how-to" guide and should be openly acknowledged and promoted as such. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares if it is "tasteless"? We are here to right a useful, informative encyclopedia. There are notable, reliable sources on this topic. We are not here to decide for people what is appropriate knowledge. It is perfectly "acceptable" for people to want to research this topic. Protecting people from themselves is a job for family and friends, not encyclopedia editors. DickClarkMises 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Forget the licensing, that's the most tasteless suggestion yet. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. The licensing doesn't match. >Radiant< 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a bonafide subject with encyclopedic value. --Ezeu 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Suicide after cleanup and summarization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia isn't censored, true - but policy isn't a suicide pact either. An article on suicide is enough. -Docg 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is informational and interesting. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Why is death/suicide so taboo? Get over it. Also I'm pretty mad that a lot of this page got deleted. A lot of valuable information was taken out. Thanks for that. NegativeSpace 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per User:EALacey - I agree that this article should "focus on topics like the relative frequency of different methods, differences between culture and time period in suicide methods, etc" --Richard 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but merge into Suicide per above. — Deckiller 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Do not merge into the suicide article. That article is overly long. SniperWolf1564 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. I agree in particular with Prolog and Johntex - use 'main' templates where info is duplicated but keep it grouped together here, and add more info on epidemiology, stats of use and completion rates etc. It's possible a few suicidal people might come looking here for info, but actually what we've currently got wouldn't be that much use to them in a 'how to' sense anyway (in addition to WP:NPOV). Rename method -> methods. Eve
- Strong Delete is needed for this article. It is presented as a How-To, and considering that the subject matter is already available on their own separate articles, there is no need for this article to remain. It's about as logical as having another article related to Injury named Injury method. Aquatics 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per David Gerard --Twilight 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and possibly rename - the title sounds a little weird when it is describing different methods. Plural perhaps? Also far from complete. --MoRsE 09:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Complements the main article on suicide. A Keep/Delete decision should not be based on moral objections: WP:NOT#CENSORED. Per above no merge because of size but possibly rename. The doctor23 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is potentially useful in a wide range of research uses, curiosity etc. The only possible reason for deletion is based on some people's individual moral decisions, which is a slippery slope indeed. List of sex positions, Self-induced abortion#Methods, Reparative therapy#Techniques... on and on. There are things on wikipedia everyone disagrees with, this is an opportunity for neutrality, not an excuse for censorship. - cohesion 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep keep it. people should be allowed to access fair information about how to kill themselves if they like. Don't censor. Leave wikipedia free and open. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.180.62 (talk • contribs).
- Keep The article could be improved, but even though some find the topic objectionable, overall the article adds to our presentation of knowledge. --Pete 10:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously this is a keep. Christopher Connor 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Has encyclopedic value, and this is not a How-To. If you want to see a How-To, I advise you to view the ASH (alt.suicide.holiday) methods file plastered all over the net and available here. Wikipedia brown 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. While that article is indeed not a how to, there are strict guidelines in journalism which state that you do not show graphic images or talk about method when it comes to suicide. This is because it has been shown that suicide rates by one particular method increase in the public after it has been in the media. 203.206.92.154 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. My first reaction was merge to Suicide, but that article is already overlong. It is clear that this Method article started out as a long section within the Suicide article, constituting something like half of it in page-length, so Method was split off to its own article with a note at the original section heading. There is already a merge-discussion at both articles to re-merge the two, and the current consensus (of one) is that it is too long to merge. That said, I think it should be renamed to Suicide Methods, seeing as there is more than one method discussed. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, do not merge into suicide. Sufficiently encyclopedic, WP:NPOV, long, significant and discrete topic. Clean up or possibly merge into epidemiology and methodology of suicide. SonoftheMorning 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scott kleeschulte
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
I thought about tagging this as A7 speedy, but I've put this up for AfD because I don't think we have a precedent for missing persons. My concerns about this article is that (a) the subject is not proven notable (however sad the circumstances), (b) this page amounts to an advert for information and wikipedia is not a soapbox and (c) it appears to allege that someone was involved who has not been charged with any offence and is therefore potentially libelous. A1octopus 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, at least until there is a policy established on missing people which this article would violate. I also added a link to a StLtoday.com (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) article which mentions the Devlin investigation, so that wipes out any libel issues. By the way, I'm not the original author. Realkyhick 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All right, here is how I look at it. Right now, as a missing person, he is considered to be alive. As such, a biography on him must adhere to WP:BIO. This article does not have multiple non trivial sources that assert his notability, so it fails that test. There are external links that provide information, but nothing new has been uncovered since his disappearnace. If he is dead, then he is just another lost / kidnapped child that was never found. That does not make him notable, thousands of kids go missing every year. Wikipedia is not a missing persons network. --Cyrus Andiron 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I appreciate the sentiment and the extra effort to find the child, really I do, but existing Wikipedia policies (WP:BIO and WP:NOT) apply directly here, methinks. This is not the place to advertise even for a good cause, but I daresay very few people would see this article anyway. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Cyrus. If there are sources about this kid (as opposed to being solely about the fact that he disappeared) then that's one thing, but there aren't that many nine-year-olds who achieve independent notability. RGTraynor 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, There are now more links so now there is no libel issue, plus it will make the family feel good knowing that after all this time people are still thinking of scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.255.42.217 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).— User:70.255.42.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Having re-read all our inclusion policies since I made this nomination, my interpretation of the notability on an alleged or actual kidnap victim and/or missing person would be as follows - The person would be notable if (a) Before they went missing they were notable (eg not simply notable because they are missing now) or (b) (in the case of a kidnapping) the kidnapper is notable (but that would only warrant details of the victim on the kidnapper's page) or (c) if the case itself has become notable or notorious. In this case, therefore, I can see no grounds for notability - the missing person isn't notable, there is no legally proven kidnapper, and the case itself is not notable outside the locale of the events because there is no criminal case (yet) in respect of this article's subject. A1octopus 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Further Comment I note that the alleged (by the article) kidnapper is notable (Michael J. Devlin) but he is not the alleged kidnapper in law (hasn't been charged with this one). A1octopus 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think his links to Devlin, plus the reopening of the case with considerable coverage from multiple reliable media, make him notable. I also think that interpreting the guidelines to say that a kidnapped person must have been notable before the kidnapping doesn't make much sense; see Elizabeth Smart. Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Coment: In the case of Elizabeth Smart the case itself is notable. We cannot accept the notability of this article's subject on the grounds of the case being notable because the only case concerning this person currently is that he is a missing person. The alleged criminal activities of Devlin will not apply to this person unless Devlin is charged and convicted of them. Otherwise we'd be doing "Trial by Wikipedia." A1octopus 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're not trying Devlin, we're merely reporting what legitimate press outlets have themselves reported, which is that Devlin is being possibly linked to this case. Realkyhick 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Coment: In the case of Elizabeth Smart the case itself is notable. We cannot accept the notability of this article's subject on the grounds of the case being notable because the only case concerning this person currently is that he is a missing person. The alleged criminal activities of Devlin will not apply to this person unless Devlin is charged and convicted of them. Otherwise we'd be doing "Trial by Wikipedia." A1octopus 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think his links to Devlin, plus the reopening of the case with considerable coverage from multiple reliable media, make him notable. I also think that interpreting the guidelines to say that a kidnapped person must have been notable before the kidnapping doesn't make much sense; see Elizabeth Smart. Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per A1octopus's arguments. --Stormie 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)\
- KEEP! per Realkyhick 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC) comments. Scott is notable at least in the St.Louis area after almost 19 years people still remember him not to mention all of the media attention he has gotten because of devlin — User:Kaylak07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Weak Delete He is already mentioned in the article about Devlin. there's enough reason to keep it there regardless of BLP. There's no reason to keep it here. This is not the purpose of WP. And even so, it's already in all the mirrors. DGG 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Keepalready voted above Jacob Wetterling and Dalton Mesarchik have Wikipedia entries so should Scott! 70.255.42.217 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)— User:70.255.42.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- Delete per A1octopus's arguments. Indrian 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
This article refers to an UNIMPORTANT general in Pakistan Army.
- 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. Those advocating outright deletion were very much in the minority. It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. That leaves the form in which the material should be presented. There was little agreement as to whether a merge was appropriate given the present size of Virginia Tech massacre with some vigorous opposition to any merge. This is no doubt an issue that should be revisited once some time has passed and the articles about the massacre have reached stable sizes, when a merge may become appropriate. As such I am closing the discussion as "keep" without prejudice to continuing or future discussion of a proposed merge. WjBscribe 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
WP:NOT a memorial Flavourdan 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a monumentous event in US History. No, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but a massacre of 32 people in the US is notable in my opinion.
- Keep This is a superflous argument full of straw arguments. You people fight as if there isn't enough space on Wiki. A list of people killed and info on them is factual information, notable, and worthy of record. This is a historic incident. A list of WTC victim should be compiled, it is a problem of gathering the information; Not having a list for WTC victims is a straw argument. Furthermore, this is not any death, accident, or murder; It has been labeled the deadliest school massacre in US history. I rest my case regarding notability. Romancer 19th April
- Keep. There is List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. Will you also ask to delete it? --Neo-Jay 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I would once it's unprotected. CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- What's your real argument? Merge or Delete? Do you argue to delete the list from the main article or argue that the list is not long enough?? --Neo-Jay 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete, wikipedia is not a memorial, it's very simple CINEGroup 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, then you are arguing to completely remove the list form the main article, Virginia Tech massacre. I strongly oppose. A Wikipedia article about a crime usually include the names of the victims. It is not a war or disaster that causes thousands of victims. Please stop using September 11 to support your argument. That's completely different.--Neo-Jay 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ]
- per Neo-Jay Chris 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't "completely different", and other similar things (the Haditha killings, which, despite being a group of US marines going around slaughtering civilians, was NOT called a massacre) do not have lists of victims. Quite simply put, it is people trying to put inappropriate material into Wikipedia. Moreover, several victim lists are now up for being deleted because editors became aware of their existance and now they're being found and, likely, excised. Titanium Dragon 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not a Memorial. It says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Please read it carefully: subjects of ... articles must be notable. The subject of the list is a group of people. If the group is notable, i,e, "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the (group)", then the group can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We do not need to prove that every single person in the list is notable. Please remember, WP:MEMORIAL is just a footnote of Wikipedia:Notability. Its goal is to exclude the non-notable content from Wikipedia. It is of course acceptable if editors establish articles to honor departed notable person, or notable group of persons. If you want to delete this list, you must prove that the group of people is not notable, i.e., has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the group. I don't think that you can do that. BTW, if the complete list of September 11 attacks or Haditha killings also has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, then of course it can also be the subject of Wikipedia article. --Neo-Jay 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, then you are arguing to completely remove the list form the main article, Virginia Tech massacre. I strongly oppose. A Wikipedia article about a crime usually include the names of the victims. It is not a war or disaster that causes thousands of victims. Please stop using September 11 to support your argument. That's completely different.--Neo-Jay 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ]
- delete, wikipedia is not a memorial, it's very simple CINEGroup 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- What's your real argument? Merge or Delete? Do you argue to delete the list from the main article or argue that the list is not long enough?? --Neo-Jay 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please see WP:INN. Corvus cornix 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The content of this article has been included in Virginia Tech massacre. It is independent because it's too long to be only a section of the main article. If anyone wants to delete this article, he or she must prove either that the content should be completely removed from the main article, or that the content can be included in the main article but it is not too long. In my view, neither of the arguments can stand. --Neo-Jay 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. I would say that even for that article, I would merge it into the main Columbine massacre. Now, granted, I have not read the list article. --AEMoreira042281 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Per neo-jay Billtheking 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Pbroks13 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Miaow Miaow 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This is not a poll. Please include a reason why you think this list should be kept or deleted. I believe the existence of this list helps take the strain off the massive amount of edits happening on Virginia Tech massacre and can help organize the details as they are made clear. Give it a week and see if it should then be remerged back into the main article. HokieRNB 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the nominator made no coherent explanation of why the article violates any policy, so badgering the people who are saying it should be kept is extremely unfair. The nominator needs to include an explanation of why this specific page violates the policy. He has not done so. Linking to a policy by itself is not helpful. Johntex\talk 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- HokieRNB explicitly said "Please include a reason why you think this list should be kept or deleted" (italics added for emphasis). He's not badgering the people who are saying this list should be kept. If he's badgering, he's badgering all those who are voting without explanation. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I would please ask the "Keep" !voters to explain their reasons, as we cannot gather consensus on a subject if we don't know their reasoning behind their suggestions here. My delete vote is based on the fact that there is nothing notable about these people as individuals, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is nothing but listcruft. Corvus cornix 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a tragedy now yes, but in reality, there are many horrible acts that happen in the world. Does the World Trade center page list all of it's victims? Does the War in Iraq page? No. Quite simply emeotions are high right now and people need to be able to put emotions on paper or in this case a computer, but this is NOT the right way to honor the dead.
- Comment. This was not in any way done to honor the dead. This article was made to temporarily give information about the victims a better place to develop, with intentions to merge once the victims were all known. We list the Columbine Massacre victims, the Kent State victims, the January Events victims, etc., etc. They're an important part of the tragedies. We do not cover 9/11 or Iraq casualties in very large part because there are several thousand of them. --Kizor 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Neo-Jay The System 3000 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which of the notability guidelines does your input cover? Corvus cornix
- As above Wikipedia is not a memorial CINEGroup 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment- I guess given that the nomination was first made only a day after the incident, and that emotions are still high, will infulence some keep votes. Thunderwing 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question - if the result of this Afd discussion is a "delete", would that indicate that the list should also be removed from the main article? HokieRNB 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with main article. A quick look through massacre articles shows that this list would be conspicuous through it's absence. With respect to WP:INN, inclusion is not an indicator of notability but in this case, exclusion of this information would be conspicuous. Mallanox 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unencyclopedic. Nothing worth in an encyclopedic meaning. if I would be one of the victim I never wanted to be on such a "blacklist". Marcus Cyron 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back into main article. Most major killing sprees, killings, mass murders, bombings, etc... articles on wikipedia have a list of victims included. A simple list of names is not a memorialization. Pretty words about how so/so is missed IS. Please learn to differentiate between the two. Historians will want a record of the victims names. How many people would want to remove the list of victims from the Bath School disaster, or the Titanic? Dont editorialize, or memorialize. A factual list does not fail WP:NOT a memorial. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because this is a list of victims in the WORST school shooting in U.S. history and thus has historical significance, not to mention that because of its widespread media attention will be of immense interest to Wikipedia readers. --164.107.223.217 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back into the main article. The list is short enough to fit there. There's no point in creating an article that will remain a stub forever. Sandstein 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I merged the information back on the main page. Mercenary2k 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't remove the Template:Main from the main page before the discussion here is finished. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Neo-Jay, List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre is an excellent point (not to be confused with WP:POINT) the list and information about the victims will make the main article too long which will in time become longer itself ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Corvus cornix 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- regradless even if Columbine didn't happen this would be a valid list▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- See http://www.911wiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page. The 9/11 memorial info that was here originally has been moved there. Corvus cornix 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- regradless even if Columbine didn't happen this would be a valid list▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Corvus cornix 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm ASSuming that we are going to list now every single victim in every shooting and every terrorist attack, including every person ever murdered, and every soldier in iraq, even down to the old man who was murdered last week right? WHAT makes ANY murder victim notable? I think anyone would argue that ANY person you know PERSONALLY would be more notable than anyone you didn't know. MY dead mother is more notable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because I knew her. The people at the world trade centers are more noptable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because it was over 2500 of them. Ego makes notability. Let's list all the victims of the 1969 mcdonalds attack in which 20 people were killed. Let's list all the people the IRA has killed. Fook it, let's make Wikipedia a memorial which Jimbo has said, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL
I'm ASSuming thats easy enough for you ALL to understand now okay? CINEGroup 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITALS. It does not make up for the fact that you have advanced no meritous reason for deletion. Johntex\talk 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Despite the tone of CINEGroup's comment, it did have merit. He did cite policy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge there is no need for an "independent article"--Pejman47 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
We believe that 32 dead is notable, but 2500 isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=world+trade+center+victims
NOTHING CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think someone should create an article on the World Trade Center victims, not for memorial purposes, but to get a real sense of the scope of the catastrophe. A long list is much stronger image than a quick number and potentially helpful for people doing research, which after all is a major reason for the existence of encyclopedias. --164.107.223.217 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- To create a strong, personal, emotional response in the reader? To have the reader stand in awe of the staggering amount of victims not by presenting the number of dead but by listing them and providing pictures? Last time I checked, a list of names like that is a memorial, and your intent is what memorials are supposed to do. Which is not what we're supposed to be doing. Cheeser1 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice this has now gone very quiet after I posted right above. Makes you realize, wikipedia is not a memorial. This page was doing edits everyu few seconds for the last 2 hours. Nothing now in last 5 minutes? Or is someone off to rush and make a page for all the world trade center victims also? CINEGroup 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think people have been put off by the level of excitement shown on this page. There's no need to shout and please remember we're here to get a consensus not drown each other out with capital letters and what-have-you. Mallanox 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what consensus is reached, Jimbo himself will kill the page as he has stated his memorial thoughts on wikipedia. He has deleted MANY a memorial page. CINEGroup 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then there really is nothing to get worked up about. Mallanox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- CINEGroup, if I saw an assertion like that in an article I would remove it or tag it with [citation needed]. Do you have any sources to back up your claim that (a) Jimbo deletes memorial pages (b) there is any similarity whatsoever to a memorial page? Johntex\talk 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge into main article on the massacre.-MrFizyx 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)- Changing to Keep since both articles are likely to grow and good arguments have made clear the need for the info. -MrFizyx 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or otherwise Merge. For those of you arguing that such a list exists for the Columbine Massacre - what about the hundreds of similar massacres that have occurred all over the world in the past 10 years? Simply because the number of victims is conveniently small and the media have made it conveniently simple for us to get the names does not mean that the subject should have an article. ugen64 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect. There is no information on this page that isn't already in the main article, and there's no reason for any more information that what is here. Several people on the talk page, including myself, have suggested sidebars ala the Columbine High School massacre and Bath school disaster. Natalie 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a event of historic proportion not like hundreds of similar massacres, because it recent it may not yet seem like it, not all the names have been released and as they do the coverage of each of the people who were victims will become greater in detail this isn't something run of the mill, let's not rush here ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back to main article. The San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, Capitol Hill massacre, and Amish school shooting articles, for example, lists the victims. Why shouldn't this one? Aren't the victims as important as the murderer? MiFeinberg 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge, as WP's not a memorial. Rockstar (T/C) 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as original article is too long now. Needs to be split. Rockstar (T/C) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Redundant to information in main article and per not a memorial.StuffOfInterest 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)- Change to Keep but Rename to Victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. The article has grown into a reasonable sub-article to the main topic. --StuffOfInterest 14:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete. Not a memorial. Kaldari 01:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete. If the list is notable or not is not the question. It's whether it needs its own article - it doesn't. If it goes in the main page, that's where it goes. If it goes nowhere, it goes nowhere. It has no substance as its own article. It also isn't like we're wasting paper by making a list. If somebody doesn't want to read it, they can scroll down past it. How hard could that be? Cheeser1 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I would say merge, but the the content is already in Virginia Tech massacre. -- Chuq (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Articles on long-ago events, such as Charles Whitman, contain the list of victims. For newer events, it is natural that we will have much more complete information. We will have plenty of information to annotate this list with information such as how far away they were thought to be when shot, whether they died immediately or later, etc. This could be valuable informaiton to future scholars and it will be too much information in the main article. A sub-page like this is the best way to go. Johntex\talk 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree - newer articles (esp. current events) have changing content. Say there's a list being maintained separately, and maybe one in the article itself, and there is content that overlaps between the two articles pertaining to more than just a list of names. That's highly problematic. Further, we have to be reasonable: how much of what you just listed would even be encyclopedic? If one of the victims dies at a hospital, as opposed to en route, what encyclopedic merit does that have? What scholars study that? Cheeser1 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The solution to that is simply to not have the list in the main article, but only in the sub article. That makes it easy to keep the list up to date. The reason someone might care about when the victim dies is that it implies something about the accuracy and force of the assault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
- Merge Chensiyuan 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Patrick 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) This will be a fairly long list. Should be separate from the main article. Victims of all shootings are tragic, but these are notable. Look at the press coverage they get. It's not a memorial, it's important and notable information that would clutter and distract from the main article.
- Keep or merge. Sahasrahla 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anything but merge - good grief, we don't need the main article to be this large. A simple list is all that the main article needs. I would lean on the side of having this article, but for crying out loud, think before you merge. --BigDT 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- "'keep"' - a list where the people who died and more info bout them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.246.66 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
- Strong Keep - per Alkavar and Johntex. A factual list of names is not a memorial. We have lots of factual listss of names, places, etc. It looks like firm precedent is set by other long standing articles to have a list of victims. This is not the World Trade Center or the Vietnam War or World War II with thousands or millions of names to list, so those examples are irrelevant. Force10 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm indifferent about the article, but it's worth noting that Wikipedia is not precedent-based, but rather consensus-based. -Halo 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - my point is that the list of victims does not seem at all out-of-place in long-standing articles. There was a rush to deletion here because emotions are raw. What we have done in other places is relevant to forming and maintaining consensus. As a matter of fact, most of our guidelines do not arrive by voting, they arrive by looking at what we commonly do from day to day and then capturing that into words. In this case, what we normally do is to keep a list of victims. Force10 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm indifferent about the article, but it's worth noting that Wikipedia is not precedent-based, but rather consensus-based. -Halo 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- *ugh..edit conflict* Keep (merge if you must) - Alright, I just wrote a long response, and I knew there'd be an edit conflict..but silly me forgot to c&p just in case..moving on. I think the article should stay. It's notable, and WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered". Well, the victims are notable, because they've been covered by press throughout the world, and are part of the most significiant school shooting in United States history. If you must, then merge, but I feel that it'd make the main article waay long, and that it's better off it's own seperate space. --theblueflamingoSquawk 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - These people are not notable individually (for the most part), but they certainly are notable as a group. Further, while a list should certainly be maintained on the main article page, we should shift most of the bio information to this page.Chunky Rice 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --MZMcBride 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Keep the emotions out of your article writing. --Servant Saber 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Hemlock Martinis 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if only because it will keep getting added back into the main article. I do beleive there is a chance it may be useful later... and even if it isn't, having this side article frees up clutter from the main article. It may not pass the ten year test but we can figure that out in a month when the recentensia move on to the next next big hyped news media event. Keep for now and we'll see where it goes. I agree that it should be concise and factual and not a soapy memorial of how we will all miss each student/professor. MPS 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. Take a look at Bath School Disaster or École Polytechnique massacre. They're well done — particularly the former — and give us all of the information we need. The current article here has very little extra information, save for a batch of likely fair use violations that I notice are getting deleted at this very moment. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge I'd considering keeping, but I think the Bath School disaster listing is more appropriate yet remains respectable. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because the media are discussing the details of their lives, displaying their pictures, etc. This makes this info notable. There are too many WTC victims (and for that matter, victims of OK City, poverty, AIDS...) for them to receive such individual fame & examination and thus easily-verifiable info. This is (or will soon be) high-quality info tracked down by reputable news organizations. It stays. Even apart from its value (or not) as a memorial, the info is eminently WP-worthy, but it can't possibly fit on the main article. --zenohockey 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
*Keep It's not a memmorial if you include the killer himself. He counts as one of the casualties. The article is informative. Malamockq 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete I'm changing my vote to delete because it's obvious that the article is turning into a memmorial, which is NOT allowed. Delete it as per that reason. A place of mourning the victims is not appropriate for wikipedia. Malamockq 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a reasonable way of presenting this information per summary style, with a compact bulleted list in the main article and more detailed descriptions here. It's not just an indiscriminate list, or a memorial as it puts all the victims in context, and adds to the encyclopedic coverage of the massacre. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if the main article gets long enough to accomodate it, merging the info into an infobox like the one at Bath School Disaster#The day of the disaster would also be an acceptable solution. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment You know, just because these people are dead does not make this article a memorial. Let's just stick to notability, okay?Chunky Rice 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't think that this is a memorial. A memorial would call them victims rather than casualties. At the moment, Wikipedia's list is easiest to find and most complete, and for those who may be distant friends needing to check, this should stay up. As a page of information and reference. Which is exactly what Wikipedia IS supposed to be. newsong 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Don't even know why we're discussing this. The list does not violate any policies. The list is not a memorial, it's funny how people see things. It's a list of the victims with mini-bios of the victims and injured. Having such information in the massacre article won't fit correctly, and most of the victims were too young to have done much in their lifetimes that might fill a per person article. I'm assuming bad faith for the request of deletion. --Witchinghour 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. The information on this page is on the main Massacre article. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - That's right, Wikipedia is not a memorial. But this page is merely informational, so there is no need for deletion. Chris 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - So any mention of the victims would constitute a memorial, that's absurd. Is this page a memorial? --Witchinghour 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I do not know if the public will find them individually notable enough that there will be articles on each of them in multiple sources; if there is such public notice then there will be appropriately WP articles in each. But as the mere list this is surely justified. I cannot understand the rush to deletion. The very need to have the discussion of it disgraces us all. DGG 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Keep This is important information of the deadlist shooting in the United States. Keep this Yearsago 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As stated above. FreshFlyFamous 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't mean "Wikipedia has no any kind of information at all about dead people" or "Wikipedia has no any kind of information at all about people who died in remarkable circumstances". I'd pull the Not a Memorial Card out in cases of, say, plane crash or other disaster that claims hundreds of victims and you'd be making an article for each and every one of these people, but this list is easily of manageable size and we're not making articles for the individual victims. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. As of right now, there is remarkably little difference between this page and the list of victims on the article's main page. Where do we see this going in the future if it doesn't get merged? Rockstar (T/C) 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge completely and without cutting anything back into the article on the massacre. It is a very notable event and encyclopedic information on a massacre includes the names of people killed. Awartha 07:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Real96 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - article contains no substantive content which can't be included in the Virginia Tech massacre main article. QmunkE 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, the list is hardly informative in its own. But without its absence, the main article will feel lacking. So merge there. Plus thirty-odd names wont make the length go out of proportion - it can be easily stated in a two ot three column format to save space. --soum (0_o) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the names and Delete the biographies - Unlike (virtually) everyone else, I don't see any reason for keeping the individual names as a separate list. I don't agree with the delete arguments based on WP:MEMORIAL, but "things where a lot of people die at once" happen every day, and we don't list every passenger on a crashed plane, every casualty of a battle etc. IMO the article on Dunblane massacre is pretty much a perfect example of how this sort of thing ought to be handled. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into parent article. Noclip 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as staded above. It's good to have sub-pages --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question. What purpose does naming each victim serve to people that have never heard those names before (lack of notability) but want to know what happened during the shootings? Why isn't a number enough (or maybe general information about the average age of the victims as well)? (Antonio.sierra 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
- Merge with main article. WP not a memorial, at least for seperate pages. --Daysleeper47 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into the parent article. This is relevant information, but does not merit a separate page. Mike Helms 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Unless this article is going to be greatly expanded, it can fit entirely and nicely inside the main article. _selfworm_ ( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_ 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - if this article provided quite a bit more information on the victims than the listing already in the main article, then I'd say keep. However, as it stands, it should be merged. Jauerback 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A list of victims, when that list is not excessively long and it is well referenced, does not violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. See a recent discussion at WT:NOT and the related AFD regarding the list of Columbine victims. YechielMan 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question: is anyone advocating to keep this article proposing that a list about these people, beyond their names as a list of victims, is somehow encyclopedic? Besides victims who may be related to the circumstances of the shooting (something that will be documented sufficiently in that article), if any of these people's lives merit documentation, they will have their own articles. If they don't, then why should we document their lives here? I don't see how the relevant list of names (and even maybe ages and positions at the university) cannot simply be merged into the main article, providing sufficient (if not more than enough) information about these people, as far as information meriting encyclopedic consideration goes. As soon as we put the list in its own article and start writing pseudo-biographies and posting pictures of people, none of which merits encyclopedic consideration, we are creating a memorial. That's what a memorial is. As I've mentioned, even a list of names, when constructed in a particular fashion or context, is a memorial (see Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Cheeser1 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The list is appropriate, it is not a memorial, its a historical fact. Matthew 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Mergify - List is interesting and relevant, but not as a page in its own right. Information should be kept in the same place for readability. Jdcooper 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Keep for now, merge back in when all the shit gets taken out of the main article, which can happen when this event outlasts people's short-term memory (next week sometime). Jdcooper 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)- Comment - The parent article, Virginia Tech massacre, is now large enough that it could make sense to have the victims names split off of the main article. I would consider dropping my earlier Delete !vote if a couple of things changed. First, the list of names should come completely out of the main article. Only a short synopsis of where the deaths occured and a count of students vs faculty should be in the parent article. Next, the article under discussion should be renamed to Victims of the Virginia Tech massacre as it is more than a list and contains information on the circumstances of how the victims were where they happened to be. Fortunately, the list article has gone through some improvment during this discussion as a lot of the memorial (per WP:MEMORIAL) content has been removed and it is more fact based now. --StuffOfInterest 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The main article is, right now, 63 kilobytes too long. Merging will exacerbate the problem. --Wordbuilder 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it's pretty difficult to convince people that we should remove the list from the main article because of this page when this page was put up for AFD almost immediately.Chunky Rice 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- At the time this article was put on AfD it was almost a total clone of the section from the parent article. Even if the list is removed from the parent, it will be merged back in should this article be removed. --StuffOfInterest 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Pupster21 Talk To Me 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Where were all these keep votes when List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm (250+ deaths) was deleted repeatedly, and when List of General Slocum victims (1000+ victims) was deleted??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 16:06Z
- Perhaps those events (as tragic as they were) were not as fresh in people's minds and their articles were not getting as much attention. --Wordbuilder 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- So clearly if this article is kept and/or the Columbine one is kept, I should be able to recreate the other one(s). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 16:28Z
-
-
- I support your recreating of that list as well as I'm sure it's useful to somebody, say at least people researching disasters and as encyclopedias are primarily useful research tools that catalog the knowledge of we humans, the more factual information, the merrier and so yes, if I you recreate that, you have my strong support. --24.154.173.243 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep
or Merge. I'm not swayed by the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" argument: the list of fatalities is historical, informative, and pertinent to the main article; nor are there individual articles being created for each of the fatalities, but only for those (like many of the faculty members) who attained notability otherwise, & the killer himself. --Yksin 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Now I think it should be simply kept. The main article is too large already for a merge; all victim info there should be deleted except for a link directing to this article. --Yksin 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — this is a factual and noteworthy list with good references relating to a high-profile event, the most serious of its kind in US history. — Jonathan Bowen 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. The "Wikipedia is not a memorial" has nothing to do with this article. This is factual, well-sourced information. --musicpvm 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Once again, the inclusionist in me comes out. Wikipedia's notability and other guidelines for inclusion are getting out of control. This information should exist on Wikipedia. The main article on the massacre is already too long and if this article was merged back into it, it would be even longer. We should make exceptions when it comes to some articles. I guarantee that at some point, somebody will come to Wikipedia looking for a list of victims and that is what we should worry about. "The sum of all human knowledge." Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? It bothers me when well written, well sourced articles (this one is definitely well sourced and it hasn't even had time to develop yet and its a list so the prose gets a pass) are deleted because they failed Wikipedia's strict notability policies or one of its numerous guidelines. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but this article isn't a memorial. It is a list of people that died in the attack and information on where they were when it happened. At the very least, this article should be allowed to develop naturally after the initial publicity of the attack has died down. But, this is valuable information that cannot be remerged into the main article due to its length. But it shouldn't be deleted. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
keep What's the big deal? It's a subpage of Virginia Tech massacre which has gotten too big? JeffBurdges 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- oops, all the information is still in the main article. So I vote to postpone the deletion vote for one month or so , i.e. keep but renominate after at least one month. JeffBurdges 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge Probably best to be merged.12.96.46.209 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as it is America's deadliest mass shooting, I think it is important to have a detailed list of the victims. GiantSnowman 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --DrugoNOT 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Merge Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ckessler 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this is one of the most deadly civilian shooting in US history. It tells about the victims and is accurate. I say fix up the article and make it more detailed. Mrld 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Lists of victims are not notable and are not encyclopedic. First off, the list of names isn't notable - if a person isn't important enough to be mentioned in the article, and don't have an article themselves, they shouldn't be in some list. Second, its completely unreasonable - look at 9/11. It would be farcical to list all the victims of those attacks. This is not the point of Wikipedia. I suspect this will come up again in a month when no one cares anymore. Using other examples is bad, because they shouldn't be there either. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Titanium Dragon 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest Keep Around For the love of God, lists of major histoical events ARE encyclopedic. This list is hardly unwieldly and I guarantee LOTS of Wikipedia's readers are looking at this. So why deny people a resource that they're interested in? Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! --172.166.196.253 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- — 172.166.196.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No they aren't. Just because people come looking for it doesn't mean we should have it; if it isn't notable (like this), violates wikipedia policy (like this), ect. Seriously, there are plenty of other places to get this information. In any event, its already in the main article, so its not like it isn't available. Please make arguments on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except that you're also agitating to remove the list from the main article.Chunky Rice 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that is an issue to take up there, not here. It is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. If it belongs in the main article or nowhere, it belongs in the main article or nowhere, not in an article that doesn't merit its own entry in Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except that you're also agitating to remove the list from the main article.Chunky Rice 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge - Keep for all the reasons mentioned by others, merge because the list is short enough to fit into the main article. Under no circumstances should it be deleted. In addition, I don't understand why people are being such hardline rule-pushers. In what way does it hurt the integrity of Wikipedia to have this article? Does it cause bandwidth problems? Is it such a NO-NO that it does not adhere to every single guideline of Wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous. There is all kinds of extraneous information on this site, some of which is deleted, some of which isn't. In NEITHER case does the site suffer for it. Stop being such robots and show some compassion. Godheval 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not compassionate; it is supposed to comply with its guidelines, be NPOV, be well-written, and be encylopedic. An encyclopedia would not include junk like this, because it simply isn't notable. In a year when someone looks this up, they aren't going to be looking for the list of victims names. It simply is not notable in an encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. By this argument, no mention should be ever be made of the name of any victim of any murderer unless that victim was "notable" enough to merit an article of his or her own. (This is of coures assuming that the murderer was him/herself "notable" enough to merit an article.) --Yksin 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I was not addressing "Wikipedia", as it is not an actual entity. I was addressing the people involved in maintaining it. You have managed to answer ZERO of my questions with regards to how keeping the article hurts the site. If articles being "well-written" is a rule on the site, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not to delete this article. Over 50% of the articles here have glaringly poor writing in them. Get to work. =) Godheval 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It hurts the site because it is unencyclopedic and we have certain standards. NPOV is one of them, notability is another, ect. Basically, by complying with those guidelines we make Wikipedia reputable, a better source of information, ect. Including junk weakens all that. We have rules for a reason. Your argument holds no water because there are specific rules for Wikipedia which we follow for a reason. Titanium Dragon 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete the list is in the main article, and every time something like this occurs are we going to have list of victims? It's a tragedy to be sure, but deleting this particular article is in keeping with past precedent here. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but reduce this section in the main article to a summary--maybe just the ones who are already in a WikiPedia article as a teaser to this article. --Lmcelhiney 20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Put it in the main article, that would be more appropriate, a separate article like that is totally not necessary. Just a listing in that article is enough as it is not a memorial.--JForget 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - please don't merge, please keep as a separate article --Scanlan 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - per Scanlan. WillSWC 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Unless there's a lot more info about each individual victim. D4S 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge There is scattered information on this page and several others. This information should be merged to create a central place but without losing information, such as ages and hometowns of victims.
- KEEP Keep this. Why would you delete it? More knowledge the better.
-
- That is not true. Not every bit of data can be considered knowledge, nor can every bit of knowledge be considered encyclopedic. Cheeser1
- Can someone explain why this is a memorial? Is it possible for any article containing the names of the dead not to be considered a memorial? lots of issues | leave me a message 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It has to have encyclopedic merit in its own right (as opposed to as a part of the article about the event in question). Else it's a memorial. That question is further addressed by some others who've already spoken (above). Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Obviously of great interest to many people. 170.252.11.11 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Which is not a reason necessarily for something to be on Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There is no reason to necessarily need a list for extra information about the victims. Right underneath an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which was already cited, is another important policy: Notability is not inherited. A list of victims may be encyclopedic to the article, but pseudo-biographies and pictures of all the victims, unless established to be important and encyclopedic with regard to the shooting simply do not merit being in Wikipedia, certainly not developed as a part of their own article/list. Cheeser1 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (I've already registered my "vote"). Most of the policy references here, such as those you mention, are talking about "notability" (a problematic concept in & of itself, but I won't get into that here) in terms of independent articles. For example, just because radio station KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article, doesn't mean "Morning program thus'n'such" that airs on radio staion KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article.
- Which makes sense, sure. Yet, as I mentioned in a comment above, many people seem to be taking the whole "notability" criteria to mean that if a given fact doesn't merit its own article, it shouldn't be mentioned. Hence, we shouldn't list the names of Virginia Tech shooting victims -- oh except maybe a couple of the professors who had achieved independent notability -- because they're not "notable" on their own.
In the article on Cho, we shouldn't mention that Cho kept a pet fish because the pet fish isn't "notable" -- even though the article is ostensibly a biography, & the fact Cho kept fish is a biographical fact about him. - There seems to be a great deal of confusion about "notability" in this regard. But the fact is that always, always, what is notable is only notable because of its context. Nothing" in this article, the main article, the Cho article, or on Wikipedia as a whole, has any notability outside of how it related to other people/places/things/events.
- It's completely obvious to me that the names of Cho's victims are notable within the context of the main article just as much as the name of JFK's assassin is notable in a bio of him, or the names of Jack the Ripper's victims are notable in a story about Jack the Ripper. The question for me is not one of "are these names pertinent or not" but whether they should be merged with the main article or not. Arguing against the merge is that the article is already so large, & WP policy seems to be "if the article gets too large, break it up into subsidiary articles." But the intent of that seems to be in most cases that subsidiary articles are more-or-less considered part of the main article by reference. The only reason this article should be separate is because of that size consideration. But if the main article somehow magically shrinks inside, then yeah, of course it ought to be merged. Until then, its a keeper. --Yksin 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Amend: Fish reference was apparently some other editor's misread of an article about Cho. I can find no media reference to it. --Yksin 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
-
- That's not the point. People's hometowns and college majors are not notable (or at least, notability has been in no way established). A list of victims is perhaps encyclopedic, but mini-biographies of each and every one are not. If a person merits entry, s/he will have one and we can use a wikilink in the list of names to indicate such. If a person does not, then there is no need for biographical information outside the scope of the encyclopedic event (name, role in the event, etc). If the only thing notable about them is that they were killed in the attack, then information about them in wikipedia should pertain only to the attack. A list of names can easily and cleanly be merged into the article (as demonstrated by a number of examples). There is simply no reason not to merge. Cheeser1 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There you go again, getting all mixed up about what "notability" means. By this argument, we should exclude the birthplaces, hometowns, educational affiliations, etc. of every other human being mentioned on Wikipedia. To me, the inclusion of such basic data vastly improves its encyclopedic value, while refraining from becoming a memorial complete with flowers & personal remembrances by each person's friends and family. --Yksin
- I have not mixed up any notability, don't generate an absurd strawman and tell me how silly I must be. The fact is, they don't pass WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned, and are only notable in their connection to this particular happening. As such, they don't merit their own article(s) or their own biography(ies). People whose birthplace, background, etc may be notable (e.g. the shooter) ought to have these things expounded, and mentioning each victim's age or status (student, professor, etc) may be noteworthy with regard to the event, but something like "computer science major from Oklahoma" is irrelevant and not notable, however much respect I might have for the dead. And please don't forget that just because I read policy differently than you doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- There you go again, getting all mixed up about what "notability" means. By this argument, we should exclude the birthplaces, hometowns, educational affiliations, etc. of every other human being mentioned on Wikipedia. To me, the inclusion of such basic data vastly improves its encyclopedic value, while refraining from becoming a memorial complete with flowers & personal remembrances by each person's friends and family. --Yksin
-
- I think that the burgeoning size of the main article is a pretty good reason.Chunky Rice 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although someone has very recently messed up the placement of the list, in Bath School disaster there is a list of victims that is well integrated into a long article. The magic of computers is that you can simply scroll down a page (or even skip all the way down, using a link), rendering "long" articles not so long, assuming we keep them organized - which we are capable of doing. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's not the point. People's hometowns and college majors are not notable (or at least, notability has been in no way established). A list of victims is perhaps encyclopedic, but mini-biographies of each and every one are not. If a person merits entry, s/he will have one and we can use a wikilink in the list of names to indicate such. If a person does not, then there is no need for biographical information outside the scope of the encyclopedic event (name, role in the event, etc). If the only thing notable about them is that they were killed in the attack, then information about them in wikipedia should pertain only to the attack. A list of names can easily and cleanly be merged into the article (as demonstrated by a number of examples). There is simply no reason not to merge. Cheeser1 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete. If we keep this, then what about other massacres and disasters? Sad to say, but this event is no different from other similar events except for the number of casualties and even that is arguable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. It might be a good idea to put up a new Wiki for memorials.— JyriL talk 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable people who pass WP:BIO and per Jyril we should keep all other lists as well to prevent those parent articles from getting too long as well. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Vital info is found in the article that's not in the main article. It is well sourced, and fairly NPOV. If you do decide to delete it, please merge ALL info into the article, as it does provide some important vital info. If you do merge, I suggest you redirect rather than delete. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back to main article or, if there's enough information there already, delete; the list should be part of the main article, rather than a breakout like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NOT#PAPER. This is an encyclopaedic topic that is noteworthy and within the scope of Wikipedia. Matthew 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Either Expand to more than a list and rename to Victims of the Virginia Tech massacre or merge back into Virginia Tech massacre. The parent article is not long enough to require breaking out a simple list as a separate article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- KeepNotable as a group. Merging would clutter up the main page needlessly. TSim 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, too detailed to be in the main article. --Vsion 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep separate article is needed. --Maestro25 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per TSim and Vsion. However, I agree with Alkivar's view that we should not memorialize shooting victims on Wikipedia. It's fine to have names and quick summaries about them, but not "It is sad that this person died, they were so great"... that is better left for memorial websites/groups than encyclopedias. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per previous statements. However if if it is only a bare bones list then delete. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all relevant info already on the main article. - BanyanTree 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep- WP:NOT doesn't say anything about "Not a memorial". Therefore, nominator's reasons are not based on any policy. Please send me a message on my talk page if "Not a memorial" is indeed a policy.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:MEMORIAL. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete - It indeed is in violation of WP:NOT--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. The stuff in WP:NOT about memorials says, quote, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The 32 victims are notable for having been the victims of the largest single-shooter mass shooting in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. Hence, their "notability." --Yksin 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:N, it seems they fail anyway. They are notable as a group but most are not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bingo! You got it! That's why they're in this article as a group instead of all with their own individual articles. Note also the WP:NOTE specifically says, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So this continual referencing of WP:NOTE is inappropriate when used to argue for the exclusion of the names of the individual victims from this article, because the topic of this article is all the victims of this massacre as a group, not any one of them as an individual. Nobody is arguing here that each of them is notable enough to warrant their own article -- because in that case yes, WP:NOTE applies. --Yksin 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:N, it seems they fail anyway. They are notable as a group but most are not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The stuff in WP:NOT about memorials says, quote, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The 32 victims are notable for having been the victims of the largest single-shooter mass shooting in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. Hence, their "notability." --Yksin 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It would clutter up the main article and is useful information a lot of people will want. Kakuuunowazawai 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, all opposing claim Wikipedia is not a memorial, but fail to describe how the list is one. It is simply a list of those killed, and does not memorilize them. -Phoenix 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- See Vietnam Veterans Memorial. If a list is unnecessary or constructed in a particular manner, it surely does serve as a memorial. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You are correct that Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article prevents the need to make an article for each victim. This article serves as an extension of its parent article, Virginia Tech massacre, which would otherwise make that page long and confusing (as per WP:LENGTH and WP:SS). Joneboi 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Use common sense and stop tearing down the hard work of others just to stroke your own ego. -Lapinmies 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, please. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Virginia Tech massacre. The victims do not deserve to have their own article, but they should at least be recognized. And honestly- the AfD was poorly thought of and poorly timed, considering the number of people this article will attract and the fact that the event just happened over two days ago and feelings are still raw from this event. Sr13 (T|C) 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Serves no useful purpose, other than being a memorial, seeing that the complete list already exists at Virginia Tech massacre#Victims. Ohconfucius 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or Keep consensus appears to be to merge, at least to keep short summary bios. I find the tone set by some here, in their zealous quest to delete, to be ignorant and rather childish. -Stevertigo 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, or if the main article is too long, Keep. A list of those who died in incidents like this is certainly encyclopaedic and is something that people reading the article would want to see. It is not necessary to have biogrphical details of the dead beyond basic notes like age, status (i.e. student, professor etc.) and any information pertinent to the incident (i.e. where or when the died), and so the article could be easily merged into the main article as a simple text list, as I believe already exists there. It should only remain as a seperate article if the main page is too long and needs to be split.--Jackyd101 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a difference between a memorial and a concise factual list. I oppose merging into the article Virginia Tech massacre solely on the grounds of length. If Virginia Tech massacre can be shortened then a merge would be in order. Until then, Keep. Crunch 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP High School Students will need this information in the future --Corcoranp 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP Are you fucking kidding me? This is actual honest-to-God useful information. I swear, some of you exclusionists make me laugh sometimes. - Stick Fig 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This reads like a obituary. There is no information here that should not be in the main article. Remember whether the main article is bulky or not, Wikipedia is not a place for lists of dead people! --Jimmi Hugh 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep (as for example Crunch, JohnnyBGood, Neo-Jay) --Cinik 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break
- Keep, sans merge. The main is too long already, and this provides information not present in the main article. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 10:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's no larger than Columbine High School massacre. Jeff Silvers 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, and that should not be merged either. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's no larger than Columbine High School massacre. Jeff Silvers 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Virginia Tech massacre. Jeff Silvers 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There is a list for Columbine, and this, as of now, being the worst mass shooting in U.S. history - yes - the victims deserve an article.
- The fact that there is a list does not justify having one here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the fact that the other list is useful is significant in showing why this list will be useful as well. Calling it crap doesn't strengthen your argument. Your argument still is not persuasive. Johntex\talk 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but we're not talking about my argument here (you want to talk about that, comment where I stated my case). I'm just pointing out that the (unsigned) strong keep and that person's argument were given for reasons that are 100% against policy. And I didn't call anything crap, that's just an interwiki link that's convenient and easy to remember. You do little by nitpicking and pretending that this constitutes my argument as opposed to the obvious and clearly appropriate rebuttal of a statement that disagrees completely with wikipolicy. If you don't like it, then you'll just have to deal with it - it's policy, clear and simple, even if it is linked as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (if that bothers you so much, get the redirect removed). Maybe you're an admin, but I'm not afraid to tell you when you're way off base, buddy. Cheeser1 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the fact that the other list is useful is significant in showing why this list will be useful as well. Calling it crap doesn't strengthen your argument. Your argument still is not persuasive. Johntex\talk 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- ""Keep"" Columbine is here too, sometimes the Wiki rules and their "enforcers" are too strict! It is a very notable event! Desertson 12:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep Just as important as the killer or the event itself. (Djungelurban 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
- If you're going to call people and their policy-citing arguments ridiculous, please try to cite policy in your argument, as I might remind everyone that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy. Cheeser1 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a deliberation on policy. This is a deliberation on how to make the encyclopedia as good an useful source on this topic as possible. These concepts are similar but very definitely not the same. --Kizor 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep I agree with all of the above about keeping this very important reference source. That this is even an issue is ridiculous.Rockules318 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This information is already nicely fit into Virginia Tech massacre. This page is not needed. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this is not a memorial and the largest massacre in modern US history. Such a list will be useful. This is a larger massacre than Columbine High School and such a list is somewhat useful. Such a list will not need articles for each and every victim. The list on the main article should be removed and summarised into a paragraph in prose (mainly not about the victims names please). Terence 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep BUT merge: Yes, this might be a future reference use in the future, but again, move it to the main article. --AEMoreira042281 13:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- merge per MiFeinberg Cornell Rockey 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as tragic as this is, hundreds of people die by violence every day. Their individual names are not encyclopedic. -Docg 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep or merge Yes hundreds do die, but this is a notable massacre and the names are short and should be included, they are the people who made up this tragedy. Epson291 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Postpone - Victim lists are the sort of things that probably don't make much sense in an encyclopaedia, unless the victims themselves were notable, as the inclusion of some lists of people (for example in Western tragedies) might be seen as an NPOV issue as I doubt we include, or will include, lists of people executed in China or who die in coal mine collapses. However, it is very understandable that emotions are running high. Why not wait a week and see what people think when this is not the number one issue on the news? Tompagenet 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Remove most victim info from the main article, though, unless it is pertinent. --Wordbuilder 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep this article. It is a matter of historical information and fact. Padishah5000 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Being a "matter of historical information and fact" isn't grounds to keep a Wikipedia article. The fact is, all these people could easily be named within the main Virginia Tech massacre article without crowding it with a little bit of smart editing. Jeff Silvers 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You raise a good point. I think I should consider it. I might change my opinion in afew hours. Thank you for raising that point. Padishah5000 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The main article is already too big. What should be removed from it in order to include the names of the victims? --Wordbuilder 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep - If there's room on this site for individual Duck Tales episodes, there's room for information on the victims of the worst school shooting in US history. Evan Waters 11:52, 20 April 2007
- Comment. As the main article has evolved & grown too large for one article, editors have now completely removed victim information from the main article except for a very brief summary paragraph & incidental mention of some victims in the narrative otherwise. I.e., this list article is now the only page listing all victims. --Yksin 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly a notable subject that is interesting to very large numbers of people. Obvious keep.
- Strong keep per Neo-Jay. Fullmetal2887 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is historical information that should be public knowledge. Raphael 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Regarding the last three comments. Deletion of this article has nothing todo with removing the information from wikipedia. The names of all these people could easily be intergrated into the main article with little expanson of it's size. Please do not feel this is an attempt to hide information or not make it public knowledge... the information will be there, just not this obituary! --Jimmi Hugh 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the editors of the main article are trying to break off parts of it into sub-pages in order to keep the length under control. Forcing a merger back into it seems counter productive, to me.Chunky Rice 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course i am aware... unlike the comments along the lines of "I like this article, it is ueful information people should know" i actually read all the articles and only make comments on policy. Hence the reason i made the coment that it would be simple to intergrate this information into the main article and maintain it's size with a little clean up to the main article. Also, even if this were not the case (as i am looking for suitable splittable topics), Wikipedia is still not a a place for Obituaries and therefore this is not a good candidate for seperation. --Jimmi Hugh 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Calm down. No need to get snippy.Chunky Rice 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aplogies... just trying to turn the discussion towards policy so that we can all have a discussion about it's inclusion based upon the rules. --Jimmi Hugh 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all about policy. I don't like WP:NOT, though, because it's derivative of more fundamental policies, like WP:N, WP:ATT or WP:OR. As such, it expresses those policies as examples, but does not supercede those fundamentals. So, here the fundamental issue is WP:N. In my opinion, the way in which these people died and the coverage that it has received confers notability. It's not indiscriminate. When the vast majority of people die, they get an obit. Maybe a mention in the local paper. These people are the subject of several non-trivial articles from secondary reliable sources. I honestly don't see the argument against it, other than the WP:MEMORIAL bit and I already explained why going to the root policy is superior that that derivative one. Chunky Rice 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aplogies... just trying to turn the discussion towards policy so that we can all have a discussion about it's inclusion based upon the rules. --Jimmi Hugh 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Calm down. No need to get snippy.Chunky Rice 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Of course i am aware... unlike the comments along the lines of "I like this article, it is ueful information people should know" i actually read all the articles and only make comments on policy. Hence the reason i made the coment that it would be simple to intergrate this information into the main article and maintain it's size with a little clean up to the main article. Also, even if this were not the case (as i am looking for suitable splittable topics), Wikipedia is still not a a place for Obituaries and therefore this is not a good candidate for seperation. --Jimmi Hugh 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the editors of the main article are trying to break off parts of it into sub-pages in order to keep the length under control. Forcing a merger back into it seems counter productive, to me.Chunky Rice 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete Like it or not, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Now, personally, I disagree with the reasoning behind that part of WP:NOT, but it is currently policy and that policy is blocking the inclusion of many other lists of victims, e.g., Columbine, 911, or the Omagh bombing (where I first learned of the policy). So until that policy is changed, it has to go. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. An external link to third-party news source from the main article (mentioning the details of victims) would suffice. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT:"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered" (my enormous emphasis) I rest my case at
Speedykeep. --GunnarRene 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not all individuals are notable enough for separate articles, but this list has a notable subject and they can be mentioned within it. --GunnarRene 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused. How do your reasons lead to the end of speedy keep via the criteria for speedy keep? Rockstar (T/C) 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- They don't. Thank for reminding me. --GunnarRene 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused. How do your reasons lead to the end of speedy keep via the criteria for speedy keep? Rockstar (T/C) 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, enormous amounts of media coverage has been focused on every one of the victims, enough for at least a stub on each. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. America is justifiably outraged by the killings, and emotions do run high, but we are talking about a bunch of people here most of whom were not notable before their deaths, and suddenly, the press is chasing every detail, however trivial, about the lives of same, provoked directly by the massacre. If that's not memorial, I don't know what is..... Ohconfucius 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge
- Delete/Merge, I agree with all saying that it is not worth its own independent article, it should be merged if not deleted entirely. Authors can elaborate on each victim then. Tkd 2000 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and do not merge - I think this article was spawned due to the size the main article crept to. I think this is alrge enough to have a list, but too large to be included in the main article. I think it is important as encylopedic coverage of this article, however as just a list int he article is a detriment to the quality of the main article. Hence Why I belive it was split into this article and why I believe it should stay. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, needs to be split off from main article for size and administrative reasons. Realkyhick 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, not Merge - The article is not a "memorial", the nominator has put up a straw man and not proven it is a memorial, it is a personal opinion. The article is a "List of.." of basic factual information similar to what is found on news sites all over the country. How else are victims to be listed on Wikipedia? The main article is too long for this one, it is a logical split. -- Stbalbach 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, - if the list of people is important to the article, then im not sure that making it a sub article automatically turns it into an obituary. it seems that an obit stands on its own, where this information is only relevant because the event is notable. seems this is why tangent articles are created - to keep down main article size. the_undertow talk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously because it's a list of the victims! Effer 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - Merge it to the article. It would avoid pointless page shuffling. Skillz187 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think merge works anymore (though it was what I originally wanted), considering the original page is already at 60kb and needs to be broken up anyway. Rockstar (T/C) 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or delete the article. There's already a section about Victims in the main article, why have a separate one? Aquatics 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was recently readded to the article after being long-deleted - probably due to fear that the fact it was split to here and then AFDed -Halo 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as the main article is too long to merge this information back into it. We can revisit this in a few weeks after everything has calmed down and we've started to gain perspective to judge if this is notable or if the main article can be shortened enough to incorporate this material. --ElKevbo 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep But Add the shooter-otherwise its a memorial Brett 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- How exactly does that stop it being a memorial? I am sure his family are just as upset about his death given no one did anything to help him, despite knowing he was mentally ill? This is not a comment about whether they should have done anything, just an obvious argument as to why it would still be an obituary. --Jimmi Hugh 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- It becomes a list of people killed during a certain event as opposed to a list of people murdered by the same person, which is by definition a memorial; plus, it seems like that is what was done with the Columbine article Brett 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- How exactly does that stop it being a memorial? I am sure his family are just as upset about his death given no one did anything to help him, despite knowing he was mentally ill? This is not a comment about whether they should have done anything, just an obvious argument as to why it would still be an obituary. --Jimmi Hugh 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or delete -- the information is already a part of the main article. I don't believe it warrants another separate article in Wikipedia. N2e 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Darrik2 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy, and that you ought to explain your position. Cheeser1 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It seems like everybody keeps complaining that the massarcre page is too long, but then you don't want to let anything stay that helps shorten it. Violask81976 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note that policies should not conflict. In order to reduce length... either unnecesary content should be removed from the main article, or something worthy of being a seperate article should be removed. One policy does not lead to another being ignored. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the policy. If an article is too long, subarticles are made if the subject is notable enough. Dionyseus 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note that policies should not conflict. In order to reduce length... either unnecesary content should be removed from the main article, or something worthy of being a seperate article should be removed. One policy does not lead to another being ignored. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is clearly a notable event, those who died due to this event are notable enough to have an article that lists their name. Dionyseus 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh... but do they deserve to have it listed twice? --Jimmi Hugh 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a clear violation of WP:MEMORIAL. I understand and sympathize with those who with to honor the victims, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. I prefer a merge to the main article over a keep, but I do not believe that the list currently in the main article is necessary.--FreeKresge 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a violation of WP:MEMORIAL because the deceased are "notable", as the are an important part of the incident itself. Certainly the the shootings would have been far less newsworthy had no one died. Ergo, the victims are notable.--JRNorbergé 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the shooter attacked different buildings and killed a completely different group of 32 people, would this story be any less newsworthy? Except for a couple of professors who meet the requirements of WP:PROF, it is not the victims who are notable but the number of victims. The opening paragraph of the main article clearly states the number of victims. There is no need for this article.--FreeKresge 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a violation of WP:MEMORIAL because the deceased are "notable", as the are an important part of the incident itself. Certainly the the shootings would have been far less newsworthy had no one died. Ergo, the victims are notable.--JRNorbergé 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- KeepTruly a momentous occasion in US History, and the rule of "no memorials" could probably easily be sidestepped in this situation. Jmlk17 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No, it can't. You don't just ignore Wikipedia policy because you want to honor victims of a tragedy. Jeff Silvers 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break #2
- Merge The list of victims is essential to a full understanding of the event and should be kept with the main article. --Amlz 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: The list seems large enough to stand on its own, and the subject is certainly notable enough. .V. [Talk|Email] 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Captainm 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Remove: Because the list is quite long, and because I suspect that people would want to include a little more biographical information than just names, the list should be on a different page. Rooot 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - another recent related discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis, which was deleted, although the !votes were even-ish. I think these things are ok on WP, but if so, I think that the WP:MEMORIAL policy needs to be clarified to reflect the notability of victims of notable tragedies or something. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Remove It fits just fine into the main article. If one of the persons is important, we can create an article. --Ysangkok 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is, still, not a memorial. Railwayman 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - relevant to the event. The ages of the majority of the victims is relevant, and the fact they come from a wide area, and is what makes it such a tragedy. I also think they're noteworthy enough as a group to deserve an article. I think people are also misrepresenting the spirit of WP:MEMORIAL, where is specifically says "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives" - I doubt most of the voters, or contributors to the article, are friends or relatives of the deceased. It's not here to honour them, it's more a factual list. -Halo 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - The list is short enough to fit into the main article. It does not need an article of it's own.
- Keep The memorial deletions above are a misapplication of that section of that part of policy, in my opinion. WP:MEMORIAL says that "...Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered", but does not say that subjects of notable mass murders can not be discussed or listed at all in the proper context of a synopsis article. In other words, while I agree that most of these victims should not have their own separate article, I do think it is perfectly acceptable to have a list article that summarizes verifiable published information about the murder victims in one place. Such a list taken as a whole is an important, notable part of the information about the crime as a whole. Therefore I recommend keeping this list, since the list is a notable sub-topic and reference for the main article, but do not necessarilly support individual separate articles on individual victims. Dugwiki 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dugwiki RaveenS 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As per above. Qjuad 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, or possibly merge and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. WP:MEMORIAL is applicable in this case because notability has to have existed prior to the event occurring (or afterward if they gain notability for something other than being a victim). --Coredesat 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - It should be put in the main article, there is no point in having it in a different section, it's on the same topic. --Jesant13 01:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep - For about a billion reasons cited above! --JayHenry 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Although Wikipedia is not an online memorial, this is a list of victims of an incident that already meets Wikipedia's notability standards. When an incident is noteworthy for the people killed in the tragety, certainly the names of the people killed and some basic information (age, academic major, status as a graduate/undergraduate student or professor) should be noteworthy. In addition, the alleged murderer has his own article. It seems reasonable that the victims can at least have 1/32 of an article. Q0 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - Should be merged same topic and extremely relevant when reading article. --KianTech 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- I've been very vociferous regarding deleting the few individual entries for the victims of the Vtech disaster, arguing for deleting them: With the exceptions of Prof.s Granata and Livescu, who were notable before the incident, all were notable only incidental to the tragedy. Having said that, as a group, for informational purposes I could accept leaving this as an entry, especially since it would relieve pressure on the looming, large main entry for the VTech incident. I am open to arguments and comments, as ever. Pablosecca 09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Extreme Prejudice I strongly vote to have it merged into the main article or the timeline page and take an idea from this section of the main Columbine_High_School_massacre page by utilizing sidebars. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge per precedent. There was a separate list for the Bath School disaster victims and this was merged per unanimous consensus. Since the Bath victims are almost 'double' the number of victims in Virginia (counting injured), there is no reason to create a freestanding article for the victims of this tragedy. If any of the victims are 'independently notable', then that merits a separate article for that individual. Otherwise, there's no basis to set forth anything further than name, age and occupation/student status and that can be fully articulated in the main article. Jtmichcock 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the deletion debate on Bath School disaster victims article. Jtmichcock 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- A quick reminder that Wikipedia is consensus based, and not precedent based. -Halo 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge. A list of victims can easily fit into the main article. Sure, the event itself was a notable and massive one, but a list of the victems and any small information on them is not notable. I recommend merging any notable information to the main article on the massacre. 5aret 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some duplication of information. (I know the main article's long, but this would be small and it's getting significantly trimmed down as we type.) A compact list can be maintained on the main article, with a more detailed list than would fit there in this subarticle. 'More detailed' need not include a biography, what Matthew described below would do excellently. --Kizor 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - These list of individuals killed in the Virginia Tech massacre is a notable subject and the article's content is presented in an encyclopedic way (very informative) and is encyclopedic. Should be kept as a separate article to reduce length of the main VTm article. The various delete arguments seem to be an amalgamation of I don't like it and misapprehension of the WP:MEMORIAL policy. AVB 2723 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all of the various well-put and overwhelmingly well-reasoned arguments above. There seems to be widespread interest in this list be web surfers, historical validity for its inclusion, enough media attention to shake a stick at, well-referenced and verfiable evidence to back up the article, and so on and so on. --24.154.173.243 20:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Merge - The list is simply cut and paste directly from the main article. No reason to have them in both places. PaddyM 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. NO, IT IS NOT. That was five, six days ago. Please check again. --Kizor
[edit] New discussion
Seems there is no clear vote, but furthermore there is a little bit confusion. People voted for "keep", "delete", "merge", "delete or merge" or "keep or merge". We should have separated the Questions
- Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?
- If this information should appear, should it appear in an extra article (List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre) or in the main article (Virginia Tech massacre).
Hope you don't mind starting this again, but it might help getting a clearer discussion. --Abe Lincoln 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
At last - a clear thinker! :-) (No disrespect to all the previous contributors, by the way) --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean there's no clear concensus? Seems to me that it's quite clear that the concensus is to keep. I only see a few deletes in comparison to the keeps and merge. Dionyseus 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well there are many merges, that might mean keep the information but delete the article or if you must keep it, than rather in the main article, but I'd prefer to delete it. But most people want to keep it, I guess. The question is rather where to put it. Abe Lincoln 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should remember that this is not a vote. Cheeser1 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Of course it isn't a vote, but it sure does help determine concensus. The nominating statement itself merely points out WP:MEMORIAL, but the policy actually states that notable subjects are an exception, so the nominator had to provide an argument for why he believes the subjects to be non-notable, something that he did not do. Dionyseus 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is something that has to be proven, and until then, something is presumed non-notable. You can't prove something is non-notable so much as point to a lack of proof otherwise. Cheeser1 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it isn't a vote, but it sure does help determine concensus. The nominating statement itself merely points out WP:MEMORIAL, but the policy actually states that notable subjects are an exception, so the nominator had to provide an argument for why he believes the subjects to be non-notable, something that he did not do. Dionyseus 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?
Yes. It should appear because though the individuals are not necessarily notable, the event is, and the identities of the victims is a notable fact with respect to the event. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No. It should not appear as a distinct list either in a separate list article or in the main article, because of policy - WP:MEMORIAL. The event is notable, but the victims in and of themselves are not notable except for the manner of their death. WP:BIO apparently used to have a section that allowed the manner of a person's death to allow inclusion if notable, but it no longer does. The names could be included in a discursive manner within the body of the main article, where and if appropriate. There is no similar list for victims of other equally or more notable tragedies such as 911, Columbine, the Omagh bombing, etc. When such lists have been included, they've been removed. (Of course, WP:MEMORIAL and/or WP:BIO could always be amended). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - There are similar lists for victims of at least two other notable U.S. school shootings, and the notability of these was not contested until this debate was underway. Both have since been tagged with an AfD, which probably is a violation of WP:POINT. However, whether or not other similar lists exist is not a suitable argument for the notability (at least currently) of this list of people. They are all receiving an enormous amount of press, and clearly a lot of attention within wikipedia. Whom does it serve to delete this list at this point in history? HokieRNB 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Of course, there's nothing to prevent a prominent link to an external list of the victims, something I had to do on Omagh bombing after the list of victims was first moved from the main article to a sub-page then removed entirealy, as discussed here). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are a victims of a highly notable and heavily covered crime. This makes them notable, especially with the media coverage they are each receiving. --Falcorian (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the information is factual and verifiable, and it adds value to our coverage of the event. This seems like a textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not oppose mentioning who was killed or wounded, but a simple list of names or presentation of too many details apart from their role in the massacre would run the danger of becoming a memorial.--FreeKresge 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes as appearing in list format either in Wikipedia or Wikisource Verifiable lists of victims are an important data point for articles about mass murders. The list as a whole should appear either within the main article on the crime (space permitting) or, if the number of victims is sufficiently large, as a subarticle supporting the main article. Another alternative is to have the list as a reference page in Wikisource (if all you have are names and no other encyclopedic style information on the victims). Either way, this is very important, verifiable published information and thus belongs in Wikipedia or Wikisource in some form. WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to these sorts of lists. Dugwiki 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where is that exception listed? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The factual information about the victims of this event should be included. At the least, this should include their names, ages, roles at Va Tech (student, faculty, etc) and where they were at the time of their murder. I don't see a reason to go much beyond that. This is an important part of the body of knowledge surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 19:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think these details are important for the historical record. Believe it or not, some readers are interested in the victims as well as the murderer. The List of Charles Whitman's victims is an example of how the information should be presented. Last year, I consulted that list because one of those victims taught me calculus a few years before he was shot in Texas in 1966. (Yes, this means that I am older than most of you). Dirac66 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] If so, then where?
Not in the main article, as it ruins its flow and is inelegent. So put it on a separate page. This allows readers who want more detail to get more detail - without prventing an understanding of events by overloading the main article with too much detail. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it has been well established that the list itself is notable, while individuals on it clearly do not pass that test merely by being a part of the list. Additionally, there has been so much activity in the main article (as well as this one), that as a simple matter of convenience it is helpful to have this piece separated out and developed on its own. Now that the facts have mostly been sorted out regarding the victims - how many, who, from where - this page probably doesn't need to go through much more editing and can stand as a point of reference from the main article. As is the nature of any encyclopedia, the usefulness of information is cyclical in nature, and over time (months?) the list can be edited down to just names and merged back into the main article. How can we achieve some closure to this debate? HokieRNB 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be fine with placement in either the main article on the shootings, or in a standalone list (though preferably not both at the same time). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, the victims should be mentioned in the Virginia Tech massacre timeline article and integrated into the text. This would put the focus on what is notable--the victims' role in the event. I oppose a simple list of the victims either as a separate article or as a separate section in the main article. As a compromise, I would not object to something like the sidebars in the Columbine High School massacre article which list the victims and where they were shot.--FreeKresge 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Own article, since the names are not important at all for the event itself, but only for those who want to do further research about these poor souls (which will be a minority in the future probably). --Abe Lincoln 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Answer varies on size Murders with a small number of victims should probably just include the victim's list within their main article. Mass murders where there are a large number of victims and such a list would be unwieldy in the main article should probably separate the list out as either a subarticle or place it in Wikisource as a reference page. Dugwiki 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merged However we look at it and whichever other policies we try to fulfil this article is a terrible candidate for being stand alone. Whatever information we add to each item on the list, it will not stop beign an obituary! The only way it would not be an obituary is if it was written in prose, unfortunately then it would simply mimick the main article with more focus on the specific shootign and become redundent. I think we should pick a different section to be taken out, this one simply will never fit into guidlines --Jimmi Hugh 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Only Merged Especially after 911, emotions are running high on any wanton act perpetrated on Americans. Whilst I would not expect to see lists of victims for each and every massacre, independent of scale, I believe that this list in this case fits the mood, notable as the event, but could exist within context of the article, worked in to either in Virginia Tech massacre or Virginia Tech massacre timeline. This is a list of 30-odd names, already part of Virginia Tech massacre. A separate article would constitute a memorial, and would be an invitation for people to start expanding the article beyond notable biographical details and into the trivial existence of individuals who would not have merited a listing if they had not been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Have a look at the article again: with all the flags and descriptions of the courses the victims were on, it bears an increasing resemblance to memorials we are well accustomed to seeing. Ohconfucius 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. I don't think it matters if it's in its own article of included in the main Virginia Tech massacre article. The main point is to keep the information on the victims from expanding into a memorial. --Crunch 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] If so, then to what level of detail?
Names only? Names plus very basic information such as age, location/time of death, and status within the university? Longer capsule descriptions of a biographical nature? Please be explicit as to what should be in, and what should be out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Short, concise bio of a sentence or two will suffice. There is no need to delete anything, neither is there any need for the victim's life stories, unless they are particularly notable, such as the hero professor. A 2 line bio on Wiki will suffice and anyone wishing to do further study on a person should search for memorial pages and articles. Romancer 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Except for those who have achieved notability outside the massacre, such as a professor who passes WP:PROF, I would limit information just to what is relevant to the massacre. This could include location/time of death, how many times the person was shot, where the person was shot (e.g., head, chest, but do not make this too morbid), and any verifiable information about what the person did during the event (such as the actions of the hero professor). Last I heard, it was not yet known if the shooter specifically targeted the first victim. If the shooter did target her, any verifiable reasons why he would do so would also be relevant. I would not object to very basic information about the victims, such as or status in the university, but including much more information than that would risk turning this into a memorial.--FreeKresge 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Answer varies on published information This part is where WP:MEMORIAL would apply. There's no need to create memorial style articles on individual victims talking about otherwise non-notable aspects of their personal lives. So lists should generally be limited to the names and very basic information about the people, as well as information about the person that directly ties to the event. You don't need to know every detail about every high school sports award or the victim's occupation and hobbies, but it is useful to know exactly how they are related to the event and what they apparently did during it. Dugwiki 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Descriptions are fine as they are WP:MEMORIAL says we shouldn't make memorial pages for non-notable people. However, these people were made notable by the tragedy (that doesn't seem to be particularly in dispute.) My point is that, because they are notable for this, they are entitled to a bit more description. An example would be an article about any particular notable fellow, let's say, an author. Oftentimes the article would talk about the person's birth date, children, marital status, etc. However, chances are, they are not notable for any of that. Because they are notable in here, short descriptions are acceptable IMO. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to reply a moment, a person being involved in a mass tragedy doesn't necessarily mean that that individual person is "notable" per se. It just means that their name will probably be indirectly mentioned in published discussions about the event. Notability refers to something non-trivial being written specifically about a subject, but it's not always the case that something non-trivial is written about victims of tragedies. So while the list of names on a mass murder as a whole is notable, it doesn't necessarily follow that every individual person on that list has received sufficient individual published discourse to be considered notable. Combine that with the fact that articles should leave out emotional or historically unimportant details on the subject and that means that you probably should not have an individual article on a victim unless there is something of substance to say about them that can't be simply included in a simple summary list of all the victims. Dugwiki 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The victims of this shooting will be the primary subject of individual news items by their home-town newspapers and TV stations, etc. Some of them will even receive segments and articles in the national or international press. It will be no troulbe to find 2+ reliable non-trivial stories directly about every single victim.
- It is typical for us to include information that is not directly related to that person's fame. For instance, we may give their birth place, even if they moved away and did not grow up there. We may include their parents name or number of children or what some of their hobbies were. There is nothing wrong with giving a well rounded description of the person. We don't have to put our blinders on. Johntex\talk 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who has been arguing for inclusion, I think this would be excessive and the kind of thing that WP:MEMORIAL is about. Yes, each of these people will likely receive local and probably national attention, individually. However, because their notability comes as a result of their deaths in a tragedy, we should limit the facts to those relevant to the tragedy. Name, age, faculty/student, maybe subject of study, where they died. Once you start talking about favorite hobbies, I think you cross the line into memorial territory.Chunky Rice 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Almost exactly what Chunky said: Name, age, faculty/student, major, where they died, and anything relevant to why they died (e.g. they were the RA and had responded to a distrubance) anything else is probably not notable and falls under WP:MEMORIAL. --Matthew 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's some cognitive dissonance to these arguments. I get the feeling that some people believe that while most of the individuals are non-notable, putting together a list of all these non-notable people means the list will become notable. Sort of a "synergy" argument of sorts. If these victims are not notable enough for an article on the person, then collectively putting their names on one page does not create notability. There's a website with all the names of the ~50,000 deceased persons listed on the Vietnam memorial[50]. Under the proponent's argument, there should be an article called "List of American Vietnam War casualties." It would make just as much sense. Another way to look at this is: If Cho, instead of a pistol had acquired and set off a nuke, should there be a list of the thousands murdered? (You could make the same argument to support a "List of Hiroshima victims). I wouldn't think so, but no one is arguing that there should be a cut-off simply because the numbers are 33 and not 10,000. 67.149.103.119 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Almost exactly what Chunky said: Name, age, faculty/student, major, where they died, and anything relevant to why they died (e.g. they were the RA and had responded to a distrubance) anything else is probably not notable and falls under WP:MEMORIAL. --Matthew 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who has been arguing for inclusion, I think this would be excessive and the kind of thing that WP:MEMORIAL is about. Yes, each of these people will likely receive local and probably national attention, individually. However, because their notability comes as a result of their deaths in a tragedy, we should limit the facts to those relevant to the tragedy. Name, age, faculty/student, maybe subject of study, where they died. Once you start talking about favorite hobbies, I think you cross the line into memorial territory.Chunky Rice 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- In fact the list of victoms should appear *twice* on wikipedia, one on Virginia Tech massacre and every person should be mentioned in Virginia Tech massacre timeline. I don't see anything wrong with including a little information about the victims in the timeline, such as where they were from, spouse, etc. So the Timeline supersedes this page, and this page should be deleted. If you want to keep this page, you should present some information which can be included here, but can not be included on the timeline. JeffBurdges 12:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The victim list should contain a short bio, birth, etc; The timeline should contain only names, not place of birth or spouse, which have nothing to do with the timeline. Romancer 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that the timeline should contain the timeline of the shooting itself, if that is ever released. It currently contains only the timeline of news releases, which is kinda silly, and will eventually be deleted. But a timeline containing a detailed account of the incident itself would obviously contain the information on the victims in a paragraph format, which could include where they were born and such. I think your describing a memorial page here. JeffBurdges 13:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The victim list should contain a short bio, birth, etc; The timeline should contain only names, not place of birth or spouse, which have nothing to do with the timeline. Romancer 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I explained above, name, age, where they were at the time they were killed and their role at the university should be sufficient. This is not a memorial article and it's important to avoid expanding into a "short bio" or including things like hobbies, spouses's name or other information not relevant to the massacre itself. --Crunch 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: The amount of current attention to this incident and the length of the parent article makes this supplement needed and useful. The extended bios here are of significance to Wikipedia users everywhere. Maybe 3-5 years for now the argument for merging will be more timely. For now this memorial serves the interests of an interested community.grubbmeister 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MEMORIAL states that this or any other memorial, regardless of how "interested" people might be in seeing it, is not necessarily encyclopedic. Notability must be established, and not just for these people, but for this particular article. If not, this information can go in other articles pertaining to the event. Cheeser1 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Notability has clearly been established. Dionyseus 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep: This content is very worthy of an encyclopedia, and should not be lost. I'd rather have this article, rather than individual articles to non-notable victims (several of which I voted to have deleted). +mwtoews 04:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Because a centralised page is better than having it spread across 30 or more articles, which will inevitably occur - Domingo Arroyo, the article for the first marine killed, has had keep votes voted on it because he's been remembered in several notable ways, which I have no doubt will happen here to many of the victims. Secondarily, victims of crime are often considered notable where they provoke a change in the law/significant comment from politicans, which this already has and may cause, such as Megan's law in the US or Sarah's law in the UK. I do believe every single article created off from the main apart from that of the perpetrator has been AFD'ed so far - surely some kind of record? RHB Talk - Edits 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Event has received multiday media coverage, while individual victims of crime are not notable the list itself is. Additionally it's not expansive (certainly no Titanic) and is tightly referenced. If we were talking about one or two people - I'd say merge. But the number of victims seems to merit a list article per summary style. No compelling arguments to delete - WP:Memorial would seem to apply if we were talking about my grandfather, not an event with coverage on this scale. Megapixie 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect The list is given in the main article. There is no need for a separate page. JoshuaZ 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The list of victims is encyclopedic, and right now the main article is too long. It seems silly to me to have this back and forth and back and forth about creation/deletion/merging. Let's have two main articles, the shooting and the victims, plus a few for truly notable people involved, and after six weeks or so when the flurry has died down, the main article can be re-assessed and if enough can be cut from it to allow re-inclusion of the list, then do so then. Anchoress 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New organization
I organized the information by room and explained the general fates of the classrooms. WhisperToMe 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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 delete. Michaelas10 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
A French language instructor killed in the Virginia Tech shooting. Much of the article lingers on the status of her husband, who, unlike Mrs. Couture-Nowak, appears to meet WP:PROF. A claim for notability is as founder of École acadienne de Truro (article recently created), but I am unsure if this crosses the threshold for inclusion. BanyanTree 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notability given the events of yesterday. You clearly dont have to be notable before being murdered to be notable afterwards, eg Sarah Payne, SqueakBox 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see the possibility of a law being made because of this one person's death. Sarah Payne's unique murder and the creation of her eponymous law made her notable not the fact that she was murdered. Gdo01 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No she's not that good an example but i couldnt think of anyone els. I was going to change it to Amanda Dowler but as you commented I add it here, not as notable as Sarah Payne but notable enough to be here, SqueakBox 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see the possibility of a law being made because of this one person's death. Sarah Payne's unique murder and the creation of her eponymous law made her notable not the fact that she was murdered. Gdo01 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Needs some serious work, however. ---Lmcelhiney 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now. In the aftermath of the shootings, it is difficult to judge whether her death alone confers sufficient notability; it does, however, confer enough noteworthiness such that we should wait on deletion, and give research into her credentials time to progress. Premature AfD, under the circumstances. Xoloz 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball - if you really believe your argument then that article should be deleted and then recreated if/when notability is proven at a later date.--Vintagekits 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, so we must err on the side of exclusion! Got it. Hard disk space is almost as precious as oxygen, after all. Uggh 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're not psychics on Wikipedia. We can't know whether someone will be notable or not. But we can't give people entries on the expectation (here, unfounded) that they eventually will probably have something notable about them. Pablosecca 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment, I am sure she was a lovely woman and deserves to be remembered but wiki is not a memorial we need to satisfy WP:N to be included. A lot of the "keep" votes are very emotional but are not based on wiki policy. It is more than likely that this lady will become notable in the future, however, we need a little perspective on the recent events.--Vintagekits 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- We're not psychics on Wikipedia. We can't know whether someone will be notable or not. But we can't give people entries on the expectation (here, unfounded) that they eventually will probably have something notable about them. Pablosecca 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so we must err on the side of exclusion! Got it. Hard disk space is almost as precious as oxygen, after all. Uggh 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep for the time being, with no prejudice against or precedent set for a future RfA once everyhting sorts itself out. As for crystal ballism, I'm going to invoke a rare (for me) WP:IAR citation. Hell, I'm liable to argue for deletion in a week or so when there will be a greater sobriety among the community, but I would like to wait 'til that time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete unless it is shown that the subject meets inclusion criteria, which seems more and more unlikely. Wikipedia is by nature a passionless, emotionless, cold, disintersted reference tool and, as much as the shootings sicken us all, we need to keep the good of the project in mind here and not let memorials creep in. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't appear to be the primary subject of notable independent non-trivial works from RS. The Behnam 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per SqueakBox. The article will improve as more information becomes available over the next few days. BRMo 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment, again more crystal ball and recentism. --Vintagekits 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As stated above. FreshFlyFamous 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep How can you be rude enough to claim that this article, about an innocent woman murdered by a violent, viscious killer during the worst school massacre the United States had ever seen, is not notable? I am Canadian, and so is she, and I feel that she deserves her own little place, after being murdered by someone she never even knew. ens 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- CommentLots of Canadians died today, do we give them all articles? Gdo01 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yesterday? and if they were notable in life or death they should be here, and if not then not, SqueakBox 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well the user made no such implication, the user just said give the person "her own little place" because of "being murdered by someone she never even knew." The user never said anything like what you are suggesting. I'm okay with keeping her article but only for the right reasons based on her credentials as per WP:PROF not because she was killed in a mass killing. I just don't want people to retroactively start making articles for all the 9/11 victims just since rationales like the one here would justify an article for every single Canadian killed by someone they didn't know. Gdo01 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure she meets PROF but I would argue the events of yesterday have made her notable, SqueakBox 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then why not articles for all the victims of 9/11, a clearly more pivotal event and more noteworthy event? Gdo01 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed! SqueakBox 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is because not all victims of 9/11 were paid attention by the media. --Neo-Jay 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not all the victims of this tragedy were either. The only one I've heard the most about is the Holocaust survivor because of his heroism. Gdo01 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, then just listen more. You will hear. Don't rush --Neo-Jay 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- But they were paid attention to. All the people in this Brit article look notable to me, SqueakBox 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- "was a graduate student in Civil Engineering" is notable to you? Gdo01 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not of itself but this chap's failed degree doesnt make him notable either, SqueakBox 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- What? That guy is the president of Honduras. Are you suggesting we should preemptively make articles for all the victims just in case one of them ends up being the president of a country? Gdo01 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well exactly (which is where I am, BTW) so being a graduate engineer says nothing about notability. IMO its her death that makes her notable, SqueakBox 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- What? That guy is the president of Honduras. Are you suggesting we should preemptively make articles for all the victims just in case one of them ends up being the president of a country? Gdo01 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not of itself but this chap's failed degree doesnt make him notable either, SqueakBox 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- "was a graduate student in Civil Engineering" is notable to you? Gdo01 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not all the victims of this tragedy were either. The only one I've heard the most about is the Holocaust survivor because of his heroism. Gdo01 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then why not articles for all the victims of 9/11, a clearly more pivotal event and more noteworthy event? Gdo01 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure she meets PROF but I would argue the events of yesterday have made her notable, SqueakBox 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well the user made no such implication, the user just said give the person "her own little place" because of "being murdered by someone she never even knew." The user never said anything like what you are suggesting. I'm okay with keeping her article but only for the right reasons based on her credentials as per WP:PROF not because she was killed in a mass killing. I just don't want people to retroactively start making articles for all the 9/11 victims just since rationales like the one here would justify an article for every single Canadian killed by someone they didn't know. Gdo01 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yesterday? and if they were notable in life or death they should be here, and if not then not, SqueakBox 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- (reindent)So we all agree that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies and that notability must be established? Let's not reenact the entire discussion that led In Memoriam Sept 11th wiki to be disassociated from the Wikimedia Foundation and instead concentrate on how this article meets or does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular. - BanyanTree 01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- CommentLots of Canadians died today, do we give them all articles? Gdo01 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, because she is the victim of the WORST campus shooting in U.S. history and as a teacher has influenced many students and as a professor has influenced her field as well. The article lists other noteworthy professional achievements beyond her tragic death. --164.107.223.217 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete unless her notability can be established as per WP:PROF. Just being the victim of a crime does not make her notable. Please set emotions aside, this is an encylopedia not an obituary. StuffOfInterest 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as per the clear concensus in this debate. Verifiable information continues to pour in every hour and this is already within the bounds of WP:PROF. A clearly ill-advised AfD nomination at the wrong time... Ranma9617 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Wikipedia is not a collection of obituaries. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If she was notable enough for inclusion before she died, i am sure she would have been added before now. Her death means nothing to an encyclopedia, she helps not to increase the sum of human knowledge. --Jimmi Hugh 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- We don't have articles for more than half the heads of state from 150 years ago. Are they suddenly not notable now, either? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies, allow me to rephrase. It is a great coincidence that despite no one feeling her improtant enough to create an article before her death, they suddenly feel it neccesary to make one, and (accidently i am sure) forget to include any of her achievements. --Jimmi Hugh 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, a lot of people here are lazy, so they only write about things when there are a bunch of sources within easy arm's reach. That kind of thing tends to happen when people die (as ten thousand newspapers run obituaries), so a lot of bio articles here get written right after the subject's death. Like I said below, I don't have an opinion on Couture-Nowak's notability yet, but to make a determination purely on the basis of when the article was created is crazy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies, allow me to rephrase. It is a great coincidence that despite no one feeling her improtant enough to create an article before her death, they suddenly feel it neccesary to make one, and (accidently i am sure) forget to include any of her achievements. --Jimmi Hugh 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- . –Outriggr § 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Given that people are still really worked up about the tragedy, and that the article has been in existence for less than 24 hours, why not close this temporarily and re-assess once things have stabilized a bit? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As I've said in the other AfD discussion, it is too early to delete these pages. Time needs to be given to see if they can be improved into a good article. The article itself is off to a good start, as it mentions her role in founding a notable school. So it's likely the article will turn out well. If not, it can be nominated later. GarryKosmos 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't know if the average person will, after the passage of time, remember any the victims, but sometimes one person stands out. For example, with the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, seven spaceflight participants died, but I think only one person, the teacher Christa McAuliffe, has remained notable or commonly remembered. For the 4/16 shootings, it may be Jocelyne Couture-Nowak who is remembered, or it may be someone else. It's too soon to delete this article.Que-Can 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike with the other professors, I've not seen anything saying that she was the writer of lots of impressive papers, or the author of any impressive books, or the recipient of any impressive awards. I think some of my college professors are really amazing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're notable, and even if she were amazingly good she's not thereby made noteworthy. And no, the cause of her death doesn't make her inherently notable either. Nyttend 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. In fact, an MLA Bibliography search reveals not a single article or book under any version of her name I can find. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Her former work describes her as a "French teacher". The BBC says "French instructor". I initially assumed that the link to her description at the VT French faculty page had quite properly been removed after the shootings, but the Internet Wayback Machine shows that she never had her own faculty page. While the article and several media sources describe her as a "French professor", the discrepancies highlight doubt as to if she had a doctorate. It is thus quite difficult to apply WP:PROF. - BanyanTree 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. In fact, an MLA Bibliography search reveals not a single article or book under any version of her name I can find. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Many of the Delete comments are forgetting several important things. First, these articles have just been created (albeit it is possible by people whom do not know these individuals), so it takes time to transform a stub into a decent article. Second, the people who can best contribute to these articles are other professors and professionals ... however, we have day jobs and can not create well written and researched articles over night. I think we should play wait and see here. The primary difference between engineering professors and many other fields is the nature of the work is different enough. Being an engineer, I have a stronger feel of the worthiness of the engineering professors, but I am willing to say that my initial impression is that this article should stay as well. MCalamari 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT DXRAW 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This victim is noteworthy as being the only Canadian and Québecoise victim of this crime. The article will take shape in coming days and weeks. Various victims of other notorious incidents have been individually recognized (Columbine, et al) and this victim should be remembered as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jniel002 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
- Weak delete - not notable enough professor. Doesn't seem to have won any prestigious awards, publications not particularly impressive. Compared to Liviu Librescu, who was also a victim, it is a joke. I know it's not a competition and both article could be included, but this article doesn't meet notability, IMO. WP:NOT a memorial. -Bluedog423Talk 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability outside of getting shot. A murder victim does not a notable person make. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable for involvement in Monday's massacre. --musicpvm 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete along with the other professor articles. If these people hadn't been involved with the Virginia Tech shooting, there would never have been articles. The primary basis thus seems to be about their involvement with the shooting, and what was that involvement? Being a victim? This can be easily mentioned in the main Virginia Tech shootings article, even if a short paragraph would be needed to describe the person's actions during this event (which may or may not be the case here). Tejastheory 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Just because some users might not like the reason for the subject's "notablity", doesn't change the fact it passes our increasingly strict inclusion standards. --Oakshade 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please add these published works to the article. The article currently has two links, the main subject of which is the shootings, but which mention this person. These are clearly not "features", as mentioned in "Multiple features in credible news media". I take strong exception to your implication that I believe that this person meets notability but am pretending otherwise for some ulterior motive. My sincere opinion is that nothing presented either here or on the article thus far establishes notability under any of the various criteria, though I more than half-expected a Wikipedian to find at least one clear reference by this point. - BanyanTree 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's 3 for now - [52][53][54]. --Oakshade 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your addition of these links to the article is the most constructive thing that's happened so far in this AFD. - BanyanTree 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- No prob. I cam acrorss this AfD many hours after I read two of these articles. Was surprised nobody mentioned them. --Oakshade 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your addition of these links to the article is the most constructive thing that's happened so far in this AFD. - BanyanTree 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's 3 for now - [52][53][54]. --Oakshade 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please add these published works to the article. The article currently has two links, the main subject of which is the shootings, but which mention this person. These are clearly not "features", as mentioned in "Multiple features in credible news media". I take strong exception to your implication that I believe that this person meets notability but am pretending otherwise for some ulterior motive. My sincere opinion is that nothing presented either here or on the article thus far establishes notability under any of the various criteria, though I more than half-expected a Wikipedian to find at least one clear reference by this point. - BanyanTree 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep She is almost certainly not notable as an academic scholar. Probably notable as a university teacher being killed on campus. (This is not a frequent occurrence, regardless of circumstances) In any case, certainly notable because of the circumstances. Yes, I think we will have articles on each. The first one proposed today Ryan C. Clark was apparently effectively deleted as a separate article, but the wrongness of what we were doing must not yet have been realized. If the public does not make the individuals notable, there will be time to delete them. I don't thing that's what will happen. WP is not primarily a memorial, but it some cases, its articles do serve very appropriately as a memorial for they record the public view., DGG 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable 76.109.163.61
- Delete -- we should be clear headed -- this is not a moral question, we're not disrespecting this woman by not giving her her own article. It's a simple technical question, that, barring some extra substantive attention given to a high-profile murder victim, they do not deserve their own entry. Liviu Librescu's entry may have been prompted by the attention he sadly receives now, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have gotten an entry anyway, along with Kevin Granata -- these are the only names (besides the perp) who deserve their own articles. Pablosecca 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's seems like an arbitrary POV. If the topic is the primary subject of multiple published works, for whatever reason, it passes even our most strict guidelines. I don't know about others, but I personally am not claiming the person is "notable" for moral reasons. --Oakshade 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That your for posting the link to the articles -- however, they were all written by virtue of her inclusion in the tragedy, and not because of her work during her life -- and they had a sort of "local focus" tone, as if meant for local sections of newspapers -- I just don't think that it's enough for notability -- we would have to give her that status before the recent events. --- Ironically the perpetrator of the massacre is notable for his act, because, macabre as it is to say it, that ended up being his life's work. I feel like reading Schöpenhauer ... Pablosecca 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, all of those articles focus directly on her work during her life. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "local focus" (I'm assuming you mean "local" as referring to the entire provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec, or perhaps all of Canada). Some users attempting to ignore or block out content of entire regions is exacly why Wikipedia's policy is to avoid systemic bias. --Oakshade 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That your for posting the link to the articles -- however, they were all written by virtue of her inclusion in the tragedy, and not because of her work during her life -- and they had a sort of "local focus" tone, as if meant for local sections of newspapers -- I just don't think that it's enough for notability -- we would have to give her that status before the recent events. --- Ironically the perpetrator of the massacre is notable for his act, because, macabre as it is to say it, that ended up being his life's work. I feel like reading Schöpenhauer ... Pablosecca 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's seems like an arbitrary POV. If the topic is the primary subject of multiple published works, for whatever reason, it passes even our most strict guidelines. I don't know about others, but I personally am not claiming the person is "notable" for moral reasons. --Oakshade 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per MCalamari --Witchinghour 08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Squeakbox, Xoloz and Que-Can. I challenge all who voted otherwise to demonstrate how the world benefits from our deleting this article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because keeping it would set a precedent for the inclusion of all sorts of trivial articles on tragic victims, which cumulatively will degrade the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. Yes, we don't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we can start adding things wholesale just because "there's no harm in adding it" Tejastheory 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT a memorial, even in times of sorrow. - Chardish 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Contrast this instance with the entry for Sarah Payne, who probably should be in Wikipedia. Payne's was a high-profile murder that inspired an important law, and other laws indirectly like Megan's Law for Megan Kanka. Also, Payne was the only victim, therefore we don't have the "no group" issues that we have with the Vtech incident. (why do I feel like the admissions dept of some club?) Pablosecca 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now Renominate for deletion in six months. Lets just see how this whole incident pans out. I recommend creating an article on her husband, who does meet WP:PROF and attaching a merge tag to this article. A merge tag does not need to be acted upon quickly. Schools are notable, serious researchers are notable, but teachers are not usually notable. JeffBurdges 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If she hadn't died this would have been prod'd without objection. Thousands of people are murdered every day and I can't see what makes her any more noteworthy than any other victim. If any sources that aren't obituaries - particualrly sources created when she was still alive - can be found then evaluate the article on the grounds of those, but as per Tejastheory above, WP:NOTPAPER isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not because she can't be notable in death (Squeakbox) but because she wasn't the focus of the notable event that happened to involve her death. By the standard presented by many keepers, every single person who died in 9/11 is notable to have a Wikipedia page because they died in a notable event. That's clearly not a good standard to go by. Delete reasons: WP:NN, WP:PROF. Utopianheaven 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as much as I feel sorry for Professor Nowak and would like Madame Couture-Nowak to be kept in fond memory, I don't think she is a notable person by merit of her own achievements. She did have the extreme misfortune of being killed in a rather notable incident, but this can be dealt with within the incident's article (i.e. a short bio note for every victim anything relevant can be said about). PrinceGloria 11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely not notable for reasons other then the person's death. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons stated immediately above. President David Palmer 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep While many people enjoy carrying the banner of WP:NN in the abstract as though one day someone comes along and awards you a certificate of notability, this article should be a speedy keep per WP:NN (Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" furthermore meeting all the notability criterion below), per WP:PAPER I don't think any single person will come along and say "Damn! Why was this article included?!", per WP:CSD and WP:DP the article does not meet the criteria "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", and per WP:IAR lighten up. Madcoverboy 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Jauerback 14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If the École acadienne de Truro meets standards for notability, then (from what I read in the article under consideration) she should be mentioned there when that school's article is expanded from a stub to a full article. Otherwise, let her memorial be elsewhere. Does (or should) every individual victim of Columbine have his or her own page? Does (or should) every VT victim have his or her own page? Does (or should) every victim of 9/11 have his or her own page? All of these deaths are notable. That's why they are mentioned on Wikipedia... but they are typically NOT split into separate articles; rather, they are grouped together as short mentions in an article about the tragedy as a whole.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.9.120.8 (talk • contribs).
- Delete as not passing WP:PROF. Or still better, redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Tizio 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. What she did doesn't make her notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The fact that she died recently doesn't make her more notable than victims of other massacres. I suggest you create a dedicated Wiki for more "ordinal" people. I also suggest that you refrain from adding "speedy keep" votes since this AfD voting is valid. — JyriL talk 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above, nominate for deletion in 3-6 months if nothing else about this woman pans out to make her famous.Lan Di 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — the combination of her WP:PROF credentials and her highly publicised death covered by the media internationally make her notable. — Jonathan Bowen 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Mme Couture-Nowak fails to meet WP:PROF by and large, she was a French instructor at a higher education institution, and with all due respect to all the hard-working French teachers in the world, this hardly even makes her an academic. You would have never heard of her unless you had classes with her or worked for Virgina Tech, or knew Professor Nowak for that matter, if not for her tragic death. PrinceGloria 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the subject she taught (French) that is at question here. She fails to meet WP:PROF because she simply was not notable enough in the field. There are plenty of French professors (it appears she was only a lecturer, possibly without even a doctorate) who clearly meet WP:PROF. She does not appear to be one of of them. --Crunch 10:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Mme Couture-Nowak fails to meet WP:PROF by and large, she was a French instructor at a higher education institution, and with all due respect to all the hard-working French teachers in the world, this hardly even makes her an academic. You would have never heard of her unless you had classes with her or worked for Virgina Tech, or knew Professor Nowak for that matter, if not for her tragic death. PrinceGloria 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Per above; I feel there's far too much of a rush to delete here. HipsterDad 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - In some people's opinions, there has been too much rush to create new articles rather than building out existing articles to the point where the content warrants separation to a new article. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - How is this not suited for an encyclopedia? It's a person that was involved in an historic event, in more ways then one. I've seen pages on here devoted to total nonsense. Internet memes, old pranks, web sites, barely known companies... surely if Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations and Qian Zhijun get to have articles, then so should this. Coolgamer 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am not in favor of keeping any of those two you mentioned either, feel free to AfD them and I will support you. As concerns "being involved in a historic event" (btw, this event is rather moving and tragic, but I don't think it qualifies as historic), I do not think it is enough to become notable. Can you name all the people who were together in the bunker with Adolf Hitler in his last days, or how about an article for every passenger of the Titanic? PrinceGloria 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with you there. It qualifies as "historic". --Oakshade 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a matter of opinion, but the more important issue here was outside the parentheses. PrinceGloria 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any event both record-breaking and covered by the media for almost over 24 hours qualifies as part of history. Coolgamer 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Part of history" does not equal "historic". Bill Cliton's extramarital affair was a major newsitem for months, and it still isn't "historic". I mean, it didn't change much in the history of the world, and I really don't think nearly as many history books wold refer to it as to the Gulf Wars or 9/11. Still, this is NOT the point here. The point is the person the article is about is not notable. PrinceGloria 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history is historic. If you don't think so, that's your opinion too. And the Clintion affair and impeachement is extremely historic that will likely be studied by history students as long as the US exists. You were the one who brought up the topic of the shootings being "historic" or not. --Oakshade 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many events are historical, and yet we don't have articles on every single person involved in it. Tizio 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works like this person is, we do.--Oakshade 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- All those "nontrivial works" are either listings of people killed in the shooting or obituaries. She would've probably never appeared in the media given her achievements that we know of if not for her tragic death. It doesn't make her notable. PrinceGloria 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the sources before commenting on them. All of these non-trivial published works are primarily about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, not "listings" or about any of the other victims. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. This is the primarly "notability" criterion for WP:BIO --Oakshade 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Conversely, please read the entirety of my comments before replying. Those are exactly the kind of obituary-like pieces I was referring to. Some of them are also rather embarassing examples of low-quality journalism, but that's another thing and not that relevant. Anyway, they do not assure notability, as they only refer to some tidbits of Mme Couture-Nowak's bio a journalist could dig out to illustrate the "news" on her passing by. PrinceGloria 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- You had charged the sources as being "are either listings of people killed in the shooting" and you seem to conceded that that was an incorrect statement. And these aren't even obituaries. The are articles by reporters and editors of major news outlets writing about this person as primary stories, not on the obituaries pages and certainly not just a blurb submitted by family members on the back obituaries page. --Oakshade 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was not an incorrect statement. I was referring to "nontrivial works" mentioning Jocelyne Couture-Novak in general, not whatever is linked from the article. Many of those do only mention the subject of the article listing the victims (even though, in strict sense, those are nontrivial works mentioning the person). Secondly, those kind of articles qualify as "obituaries" in my book, even if they aren't in the strictest sense. Those articles have only been created written because the person was killed in a highly-publicized incident, not because the person was notable herself, and do not assert her notability in any way. PrinceGloria 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That just means you're employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the reasons the person is notable. If tyou think that major publications choosing to write multiple published works primarily about the person, (obituary or not) means the person is not "notable," then that's your POV. CBC News, Radio Canada, TQS and The Chronicle-Herald all dissagree and found her "notable" enough to write stories primarily about her.--Oakshade 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it is plain obvious media only mentioned her because she was a victim of the shooting and information on her proved relatively easy to gather, while the news outlets needed to somehow fill the news slots assigned to this topic with some "new" info. Rather than try to bend the WP policies to serve a rather doubtful cause, I'd rather we employed some common sense here. That said, lex specialis derogat legi generali and I have just been reminded a relevant former exist in the form of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. PrinceGloria 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons they wrote about her (far more than "mentions" you claim), but the fact is multiple media outlets did. Notability is not subjective. We don't choose who is "notable", reliable sources do. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The stories you cite above do take Ms Couture-Nowak as a subject, but those aren't sufficient criteria. They are focusing on her as a way of elucidating the details of the tragedy. This is akin to someone doing a piece about what X student's personal experience was during the incident -- that random student does not then deserve her own page. To put it another way, the stories about Ms Nowak are not about her so much as they are about further reporting the tragedy. Pablosecca 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Elucidating? I had to look that one up. Actually, her being the primary subject of multiple non-trival published works is most certainly criteria. They are about her and her life, not at all akin to "X student's personal experiance was during the incident". Employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT as for the reasons of her being the subject of all those articles is not a proper reason to ingnore our strict inclusion criteria. --Oakshade 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully accept that she is the subject of the articles you linked above. I also accept that they are about her and her life. Finally, let me say I like her and her article as such. But the simple fact is the articles were written as a result of her death. Other murder victims have their own individual pages, but in such cases they were made prominent (posthumously) by copious media attention for one reason or another. Cf., Megan Kanka, who gave her name to Megan's Law. Now: if in the next few weeks, some information comes to light about Mme Couture Nowak, and she gets attention from major news media or what have you, then she probably will be notable. Focus pieces (the articles you linked) don't suffice because they are inherently based upon the event, not the individual -- that is to say, take any nonfamous random professor in the world, put them in Couture Nowak's (tragic) position, and she/he'd still get the same attention -- not from the same sources, of course, but they'd get attention -- if she had been from Texas, local Texan papers would be writing articles about own of their own dying in such a public way. Got it? Pablosecca 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I "got" that the multiple ariticles about her were inspired by her death. But that's just it, they're still written about her. We have the clause Notability is not subjective for a reason. We can't just arbitrarily apply our core guidelines to how we see fit. To say "Yes, she's notable and passes our guidelines, but I don't think the reason she passes our guildelines is suffeiciant" completely negates the existance of our core guidelines. If she was the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources, for whatever reason, she passes WP:N and WP:BIO very clearly. If you choose to WP:IGNORE our core guidelines and apply them arbitrarily, ie: "She passes WP:N and WP:BIO only because of her death", then its an example of how frivolous our guidelines are. --Oakshade 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully accept that she is the subject of the articles you linked above. I also accept that they are about her and her life. Finally, let me say I like her and her article as such. But the simple fact is the articles were written as a result of her death. Other murder victims have their own individual pages, but in such cases they were made prominent (posthumously) by copious media attention for one reason or another. Cf., Megan Kanka, who gave her name to Megan's Law. Now: if in the next few weeks, some information comes to light about Mme Couture Nowak, and she gets attention from major news media or what have you, then she probably will be notable. Focus pieces (the articles you linked) don't suffice because they are inherently based upon the event, not the individual -- that is to say, take any nonfamous random professor in the world, put them in Couture Nowak's (tragic) position, and she/he'd still get the same attention -- not from the same sources, of course, but they'd get attention -- if she had been from Texas, local Texan papers would be writing articles about own of their own dying in such a public way. Got it? Pablosecca 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Elucidating? I had to look that one up. Actually, her being the primary subject of multiple non-trival published works is most certainly criteria. They are about her and her life, not at all akin to "X student's personal experiance was during the incident". Employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT as for the reasons of her being the subject of all those articles is not a proper reason to ingnore our strict inclusion criteria. --Oakshade 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The stories you cite above do take Ms Couture-Nowak as a subject, but those aren't sufficient criteria. They are focusing on her as a way of elucidating the details of the tragedy. This is akin to someone doing a piece about what X student's personal experience was during the incident -- that random student does not then deserve her own page. To put it another way, the stories about Ms Nowak are not about her so much as they are about further reporting the tragedy. Pablosecca 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons they wrote about her (far more than "mentions" you claim), but the fact is multiple media outlets did. Notability is not subjective. We don't choose who is "notable", reliable sources do. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it is plain obvious media only mentioned her because she was a victim of the shooting and information on her proved relatively easy to gather, while the news outlets needed to somehow fill the news slots assigned to this topic with some "new" info. Rather than try to bend the WP policies to serve a rather doubtful cause, I'd rather we employed some common sense here. That said, lex specialis derogat legi generali and I have just been reminded a relevant former exist in the form of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. PrinceGloria 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That just means you're employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the reasons the person is notable. If tyou think that major publications choosing to write multiple published works primarily about the person, (obituary or not) means the person is not "notable," then that's your POV. CBC News, Radio Canada, TQS and The Chronicle-Herald all dissagree and found her "notable" enough to write stories primarily about her.--Oakshade 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was not an incorrect statement. I was referring to "nontrivial works" mentioning Jocelyne Couture-Novak in general, not whatever is linked from the article. Many of those do only mention the subject of the article listing the victims (even though, in strict sense, those are nontrivial works mentioning the person). Secondly, those kind of articles qualify as "obituaries" in my book, even if they aren't in the strictest sense. Those articles have only been created written because the person was killed in a highly-publicized incident, not because the person was notable herself, and do not assert her notability in any way. PrinceGloria 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- You had charged the sources as being "are either listings of people killed in the shooting" and you seem to conceded that that was an incorrect statement. And these aren't even obituaries. The are articles by reporters and editors of major news outlets writing about this person as primary stories, not on the obituaries pages and certainly not just a blurb submitted by family members on the back obituaries page. --Oakshade 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Conversely, please read the entirety of my comments before replying. Those are exactly the kind of obituary-like pieces I was referring to. Some of them are also rather embarassing examples of low-quality journalism, but that's another thing and not that relevant. Anyway, they do not assure notability, as they only refer to some tidbits of Mme Couture-Nowak's bio a journalist could dig out to illustrate the "news" on her passing by. PrinceGloria 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the sources before commenting on them. All of these non-trivial published works are primarily about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, not "listings" or about any of the other victims. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. This is the primarly "notability" criterion for WP:BIO --Oakshade 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- All those "nontrivial works" are either listings of people killed in the shooting or obituaries. She would've probably never appeared in the media given her achievements that we know of if not for her tragic death. It doesn't make her notable. PrinceGloria 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works like this person is, we do.--Oakshade 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The impeachment is, the affair not so, I guess. I mean, if we didn't know anything about the whereabouts of Miss Lewinsky and the kinky details of whatever happened in the Oval Room, we could still study the legal case. I do like this discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that the article is eligible for deletion anyway. PrinceGloria 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many events are historical, and yet we don't have articles on every single person involved in it. Tizio 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history is historic. If you don't think so, that's your opinion too. And the Clintion affair and impeachement is extremely historic that will likely be studied by history students as long as the US exists. You were the one who brought up the topic of the shootings being "historic" or not. --Oakshade 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Part of history" does not equal "historic". Bill Cliton's extramarital affair was a major newsitem for months, and it still isn't "historic". I mean, it didn't change much in the history of the world, and I really don't think nearly as many history books wold refer to it as to the Gulf Wars or 9/11. Still, this is NOT the point here. The point is the person the article is about is not notable. PrinceGloria 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any event both record-breaking and covered by the media for almost over 24 hours qualifies as part of history. Coolgamer 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a matter of opinion, but the more important issue here was outside the parentheses. PrinceGloria 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with you there. It qualifies as "historic". --Oakshade 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am not in favor of keeping any of those two you mentioned either, feel free to AfD them and I will support you. As concerns "being involved in a historic event" (btw, this event is rather moving and tragic, but I don't think it qualifies as historic), I do not think it is enough to become notable. Can you name all the people who were together in the bunker with Adolf Hitler in his last days, or how about an article for every passenger of the Titanic? PrinceGloria 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - All sentimentality put aside, this individual does not warrent an article because of lack of notability by her own merits. The only reason why an article was created for her was due to her untimely death in a horrible tragedy, and yet we do not have articles for the other victims -- because of notability issues. Just because she was an instructor does not make her notable; she fails WP:PROF. The reason why there are not articles for every single victim in any massacre should apply to this individual in question. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable for reasons other than her death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingOfExtreme (talk • contribs).
- Keep. Sufficiently notable. --Eastmain 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:PROF. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Even pushing for a school to be opened, by a provincial agency, is not real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. The main article on the shootings should cover it; there will be plenty of victim memorials in appropriate places. Ckessler 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:PROF. TomTheHand 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT, WP:PROF. Flavourdan 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - MAKES NO SENSE - why is SHE deleteable when Kevin Granata and Liviu Librescu, also instructors killed in the massacre, are not? Illogical!! HeberMK 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Read WP:PROF. Notability has to be established beyond being a victim. Those two are full professors which make them more likely to have some scholarly activities establishing notability. --StuffOfInterest 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest Keep Around For the love of God, she's one of only a few faculty victims in a histori shooting, has some notability for professional achievements, and because of the media coverage, people WILL want to learn more about her for at least the time being. Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! We must always err on the side of INCLUSION! --172.166.196.253 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- — 172.166.196.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep WP:PROF does NOT apply here as this professor's notability is not contingent on acadamic standing. Re-evaluate again later. I believe she is notable as the victim of the worst school shooting in US History. This issue is too emotionally charged right now to be fairly evaluated. Eclectek C T 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The issue seems emotionally charged only on the "keepers" side. I don't see much emotions in the, rather valid, arguments for deletion based on WP policies. If WP:PROF does not apply (and the article doesn't meet it anyway), then it has been already established that the person in question is not notable on her own. PrinceGloria 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this person does. Per WP:N: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person adhears to the letter of WP:N. --Oakshade 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:BIO would be the applicable policy. But, first and foremost, there is WP:MEMORIAL, which common sense would suggest to see as overriding all else mentioned. PrinceGloria 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this person does. Per WP:N: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person adhears to the letter of WP:N. --Oakshade 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The issue seems emotionally charged only on the "keepers" side. I don't see much emotions in the, rather valid, arguments for deletion based on WP policies. If WP:PROF does not apply (and the article doesn't meet it anyway), then it has been already established that the person in question is not notable on her own. PrinceGloria 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I hope that these "let's keep it and see how it pans out" opinions are regarded as invalid by the administrator, as they don't state a valid policy reasoning.Pablosecca 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Huh? I hope not as those comments are valid, SqueakBox 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. If an article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, it should be deleted, and not kept in anticipation of once meeting them. If that approach was widely instilled, the inclusion guidelines would effectively become totally ineffective ;) PrinceGloria 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Huh? I hope not as those comments are valid, SqueakBox 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Is not notable; would be willing to reconsider if additional evidence were produced. --ElKevbo 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT a memorial, does not meet WP:PROF. MSJapan 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PROF doens't apply here as the person doesn't have an article due to academic acheivements. WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO do. --Oakshade 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article topic that's not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary crierion of WP:NOTABILITY (and belive me, deletionists will pounce hard), I'll point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of our inclusion guidelines.--Oakshade 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't like "wait and see" only because it leads to inclusion of people like Kristi Yamaoka and an inability to delete them despite years going by without a mention of them, and no work done on the article except in the news-blast aftermath of an incident, basically because someone thinks that it's OK to keep them if they don't meet guidelines. What we need is a prohibition or moratorium on creating these types of articles in the first place within hours of an event - if time elapses and the subject is still relevant, that's a different story. MSJapan 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:BIO, and is notable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Where this appears to conflict with "not a memorial", the primary criterion takes priority. She is now the multiple non-trivial published works, regardless of whether she was before. --Eastmain 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Couture-Nowak is the object of several articles in credible news media (which primarily reference her, not the shooting). Therefore she is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and is independently notable of the shooting event. Furthermore, were we to merge all her biographical details into the Virginia Tech massacre article, this would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting. Keeping them here adds to readers' understanding of Couture-Nowak. Greenshed 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete From the above comments i realize that people who want to delete this are cynical. But seriously, WP guidelines say, WP is not the place to honor people who have recently died. The subject's notability should have been claimed BEFORE her death - OR - something remarkable about her should have occured in the incident. Keeping this is abuse of WP. Medico80 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Those are the wisest words written here. That said, I tend to believe at least some of the people aredntly advocating keeping are being pretty cynical in fact. PrinceGloria 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually many people have articles here based on having being murdered Amanda Dowler being one of them, and these articles have been here months and years. So how is this an abuse of WP when notability established by the nature of death has so much precedent here (at least hundreds of articles), SqueakBox 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I loathe drawing such comparisons, but with all due respect, the death of Amanda Dowler and subsequent investigations give her a substantially better claim to notability than our subject here. Her death was moving and tragic, but at the end of the day there isn't much more to say about it that she was shot by a psychically unstable man among many other victims that day, while no other element of her biography makes her notable in any way. I must say I really find it emotionally revolting to write about a recently deceased person that way... PrinceGloria 23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many media outlets wrote much more about here than being shot. In fact, they wrote many full articles primarily about her. --Oakshade 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- For sure, but they only wrote about here BECAUSE she was one of the persons shot, and perhaps because they could gather some information easily. There isn't anything of note about her in any of those articles. PrinceGloria 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinion of what relaible sources wrote about her doesn't matter, but the fact is reliable sources did write mulitple stories about her, whether you like why they did or not.--Oakshade 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am afraid thinking does have to be employed when applying WP policies... PrinceGloria 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinion of what relaible sources wrote about her doesn't matter, but the fact is reliable sources did write mulitple stories about her, whether you like why they did or not.--Oakshade 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- For sure, but they only wrote about here BECAUSE she was one of the persons shot, and perhaps because they could gather some information easily. There isn't anything of note about her in any of those articles. PrinceGloria 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many media outlets wrote much more about here than being shot. In fact, they wrote many full articles primarily about her. --Oakshade 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I loathe drawing such comparisons, but with all due respect, the death of Amanda Dowler and subsequent investigations give her a substantially better claim to notability than our subject here. Her death was moving and tragic, but at the end of the day there isn't much more to say about it that she was shot by a psychically unstable man among many other victims that day, while no other element of her biography makes her notable in any way. I must say I really find it emotionally revolting to write about a recently deceased person that way... PrinceGloria 23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- redirect, redirects are cheap, no afd necessary. dab
(𒁳) 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep BrenDJ 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember this is not a vote. This is a search for consensus regarding policy. If you have a particular perspective, please elucidate it with a rationale. Pablosecca 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable academic. Victim of VT shooting can be covered in Virginia Tech massacre. Crunch 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Assuming people-articles need to be assessed by notability REGARDLESS of death, and that death MAY make one notable REGARDLESS of other notability tests, I believe that this article should be kept for now, and then the community should consider MERGING people of lesser notability into the main incident's article, or make another article titled "victims of virginia tech massacre". Notable professors should keep their article. Furthermore, I'd like to add that if space is not the issue, then we should keep ALL articles as is, as long as they are properly written. Romancer 18th April 2007
- Strong Keep Deserves to be remembered. --132.170.35.167 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Every deceased person deserves to be remembered, but they don't all get an article in this encylopedia. They have to pass certain notability standards. My uncle Phil and my childhood dog, Spot, both also deserve to be remembered, but they're not getting articles here. --Crunch 10:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - very non-notable - she's just a teacher! Just because she was killed in a school shooing does not deem her notable enough for an article. Weatherman90 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy DeleteThis article was created as a reaction to the VT shootings, the history itself says created from "news sources" unreliable at best, there's not even a published date of birth for this person!? Shabby original research at best, this article isn't fair in doing the subject justice in such close relation and association to the VT shootings. This person can and will be remembered without the help of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.215.101 (talk • contribs) 19:39, April 18, 2007 — 76.23.215.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete/Merge NN, should be consolidated with other victims TSim 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete eventually--yes; delete this week,no. Delete when it makes good sense to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.198.210 (talk • contribs) 21:22, April 18, 2007 — 76.5.198.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete as per many arguments stated above, as been only known as because she was a victim of the shooting--JForget 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I love teachers just as much as anyone and I really feel terrible for her and her family. But there cannot be articles for all the victims and there can't be articles for all teachers. She didn't seem to be a full professor and didn't have any published works. It's been a day and anyone could have added more research at this point. Perhaps she could have mention in her husband's article; he seems to meet notability standards. She was notable as a very nice French teacher, but she is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Gloriamarie 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Her only notability was her death and that can be mentioned elsewhere, like her husband's page or the victims page. Death is not a criterion of WP:PROF GizzaChat © 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, clearly meets the notability standard due to press coverage. Possibly merge onto a consolidated victims page in the future, if such a page would not be excessively long (I suspect it might be). Everyking 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Not otherwise notable aside from how she died. As Gloriamarie states, we cannot have articles for all the victims simply because of the manner in which they were killed - there has to have been notability prior to the death (although not in all cases, but this isn't really a special case), and there doesn't seem to be any. We are not a breaking news source - that is what Wikinews is for - and we aren't a memorial, either. --Coredesat 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter why she's notable, but the fact is she is notable and passes the letter of WP:N through mulitiple publshed works by reliable sources being primarily about her. --Oakshade 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it does matter very much. Wiki policies are written as guidelines, and not immutable laws - it is rather frequent that two policies would be in conflict, such as WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (to some extent) here. What you need to do is just use common sense to figure out what would the spirit of the regulations in question suggest. Perhaps this whole discussion signifies the need for a slight alteration of WP:BIO, but it doesn't change the fact that the person in question became of interest to the media solely because her tragic death, which does not make her notable. PrinceGloria 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's rendering the very core inclusion criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as frivolous. To say "Well, this topic might be notable and pass WP:N, but it should be deleted because [insert arbitrary argument]" is a demonstration of the farcical application of our own guidelines . What if somebody wants to keep an article topic that has absolutely no published works about it? Can they say "WP:N is only a guideline, so it should be kept because [insert arbitrary argument]"? I doubt anyone but the most ardent inclusionists wouldn't stand for that. The fact is this person is the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources, whether we like the reason she's the subject of all of those works or not. Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now, what we have here is WP:BIO standing in opposition to WP:MEMORIAL on the issue - it is not an arbitrary argument, it is a standing WP policy. Actually, WP:BIO and all notability guidelines are, well, guidelines, and thus are somehow less "powerful" than WP policies, if you prefer to go legal about it. But in my understanding such conflicts should be resolved using common sense. It is fairly obvious why the media wrote about Mme Couture-Nowak - no matter how many details they dug out (and there weren't that many of them), it was still all about a victim of the shooting, not a notable persona on its own. It has nothing to do with me liking it or not, it just is that way. Or would you be willing to prove she was ACTUALLY notable (WP criteria aside) for anything else than her tragic death? PrinceGloria 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- While the primary inclusion criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are adhered to and WP:MEMORIAL is a sub-clause buried in the page WP:NOT, it isn't in opposition to our most basic of inclusion fundamentals that this topic passes. Besides WP:MEMORIAL doesn't even apply here. Read the text of it in full... "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."... This article wasn't written about somebody's grandpa that otherwise had no published works about them. That's what WP:MEMORIAL was written for to prevent and doesn't at all apply to Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. It doesn't in any way negate article topics that have been the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources.--Oakshade 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now, what we have here is WP:BIO standing in opposition to WP:MEMORIAL on the issue - it is not an arbitrary argument, it is a standing WP policy. Actually, WP:BIO and all notability guidelines are, well, guidelines, and thus are somehow less "powerful" than WP policies, if you prefer to go legal about it. But in my understanding such conflicts should be resolved using common sense. It is fairly obvious why the media wrote about Mme Couture-Nowak - no matter how many details they dug out (and there weren't that many of them), it was still all about a victim of the shooting, not a notable persona on its own. It has nothing to do with me liking it or not, it just is that way. Or would you be willing to prove she was ACTUALLY notable (WP criteria aside) for anything else than her tragic death? PrinceGloria 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's rendering the very core inclusion criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as frivolous. To say "Well, this topic might be notable and pass WP:N, but it should be deleted because [insert arbitrary argument]" is a demonstration of the farcical application of our own guidelines . What if somebody wants to keep an article topic that has absolutely no published works about it? Can they say "WP:N is only a guideline, so it should be kept because [insert arbitrary argument]"? I doubt anyone but the most ardent inclusionists wouldn't stand for that. The fact is this person is the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources, whether we like the reason she's the subject of all of those works or not. Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it does matter very much. Wiki policies are written as guidelines, and not immutable laws - it is rather frequent that two policies would be in conflict, such as WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (to some extent) here. What you need to do is just use common sense to figure out what would the spirit of the regulations in question suggest. Perhaps this whole discussion signifies the need for a slight alteration of WP:BIO, but it doesn't change the fact that the person in question became of interest to the media solely because her tragic death, which does not make her notable. PrinceGloria 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter why she's notable, but the fact is she is notable and passes the letter of WP:N through mulitiple publshed works by reliable sources being primarily about her. --Oakshade 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep In my mind, Wikipedia has as its main strength the fact that it is able to quickly adapt to the proliferation of information that is available in the "information age". I don't see the rush to delete a person who sadly passed away in a highly topical event. To my mind, this makes the page notable. Later, after the dust has settled, notability can be revisited and it can be put up for deletion again like other minor participants in historic events. Dr Aaron 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comment - well, one of Wikipedia's unwritten features is the ability to filter the overabundance of infotrash typical for the information age and retain only what is really valuable. As to your last sentence, the notability guideline clearly states that notability does not change with time, so if the person is not notable, she will not be - unless we will learn of something that would make her notable, in which case an article can of course be created. PrinceGloria 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete indeed, even in times of sorrow WP is not a memorial.. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. My condolences. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Bluerです。 なにか? 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I think it is utterly clear that the subject of this article fits the criteria in WP:N. This shows that WP:N needs to be rethought. In the meantime, let's apply Ignore All Rules; it obviously wasn't *meant* to be covered by the notability policy, and we shouldn't treat it as if is regardless of what the literal wording demands. Ken Arromdee 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It was a notable victim IMHO --Vlad|-> 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
* Delete and redirect to List of victims of Virginia Tech massacre page. Though I disagree with most of the proposed deletions of the prod-happy people who have proposed deletion on just about everything else having to do with the shootings outside the main article itself, in this case I find that unlike three other profs who died there who have their own articles, Ms. Couture-Nowak does not have sufficient notability per WP:BIO to warrant her own article, & is sufficiently covered in the List of victims article. --Yksin 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. On further reading of WP:BIO criteria for notability (which of course are just a guideline anyway, not a policy, & currently much disputed), I have decided to change my vote back to keep. Regardless of how "notable" she was by those criteria prior to her death, the circumstances of her death may render her notable in a manner beyond simple memorialization. Some recent coverage has indicated that her actions when her class was under attack are also worthy of note. --Yksin 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with the list article. This article reads like an obituary. D4S 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- fails WP:PROF. Yaf 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not a memorial, not notable. 165.234.90.1 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because a) she is notable, b) she fulfills WP:PROF. Wayyyy too early to delete someone who is part of an active and historically important news story as well. --172.162.46.70 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment She is not notable, being murdered does not make you notable when you were one of many victims. She definetly doesnt fulfill PROF, she has no achievements at all. Also, Wikipedia is permement we do not add something becasue it is kinda somewhat related to the news then delete it later. Something active is not also historically important. This is a blemish on the time line and i pray we don't become pathetic enough to consider it more --Jimmi Hugh 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)\
- Comment. While this person is not notable for anything except being murdered, we do have articles on 'college football players' noted for 'dying of heatstroke' or gunshot victim. So, even though I think a person like this is not notable, Wikipedia is already watered down far enough to make this article acceptable. The bottom line: Wikipedia replaces 'expertism' with 'popularity by the masses.'R Young {yakłtalk} 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - No, we simply haven't got around to deleting every non-notable person from the site. But please do place links to non-notable people noted only for their death on my talk page and i will make sure i put them up for deletion. Policy, not mass stupidity is the usual choice for these things. --Jimmi Hugh 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per deletes above. Fails WP:PROF. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Resolute 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep This person is of great significance because of her Canadian identity. This is one of the main things that links Canada to the Virginia Tech massacre. I think that many Canadians have been very involved with following this event because of her. It is precisely because this woman with a proud French-Canadian identity died in this massacre that the RCMP and the Canadian government are now taking steps to protecting schools in Canada. If you have any doubt of the notability of this person just type her name into Google News or see the "Further Reading" section on the bottom of her page and see the numerous articles just on this one individual... it outsurpasseses all the other victims by far. The media, but most especially the Canadian media saw it fit to have lengthy articles on just this one person. Why not here?HelpfulUser 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Of all the comments here that say "keep" for the wrong reasons, this is probably the worst one. "But she's Canadian" doens't count IMHO :-/ Medico80 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF. People aren't notable for dying horrible deaths. Titanium Dragon 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. It is the massacre that is notable and is attracting all of the attention, not her. There is no evidence that she is notable outside the massacre.--FreeKresge 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to the massacre article. Laacks notability. -Phoenix 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF. No other notability exists that would warrant a seperate article. Rafy 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:PROF. --Ragib 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:N? WP:N states very clearly A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. And the person passes WP:BIO too. WP:PROF doesn't apply. WP:NOT applies to people who do not pass WP:N. --Oakshade 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely agree with the users directly above me. Fails notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, our notability policy says that 'Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".' and '"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."' By the literal wording of the policy, she's in fact notable, despite not being famous or important, because there are articles about her. The policy is just broken. Ken Arromdee 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a good point. I ran up against a similar problem a few months ago while trying to have Al Gore III deleted. Like many of the VT victims, he hasn't really done anything notable himself, but he attracted independent media attention anyway for reasons beyond his control (i.e. the identity of his father). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete She sounds like a fine person, and her death was tragic. The same applies to thousands of people who are murdered every year, but Wikipedia is not a memorial book. She does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. My views correspond to the essay WP:NOTNEWS, that an event may be newsworthy without being a suitabe topic for an encyclopedia. When the references all are related to a single news event their affirmation of notability is questionable. See also WP:N where Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Her part in the events on Norris that day should be included in the main article.Edison 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep loads of info here that is published and not suitble in other articles, therefore it is notable as an article on its own. There is also minimal repitition to other articles (good work to the contributers). +mwtoews 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep as DGG V1t 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, not a memorial, not an obituary 199.94.78.104 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep People will want to know about the victims of this event. It's informative and notable. (Bjorn Tipling 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
- Weak keep She appears to barely meet the primary notability criterion, namely that she is the subject of multiple independently published articles. I should mention this is a very weak keep, however, since the references do not appear to cover much of a time span. References should appear over more than a brief span of time to ensure true independence among the sources and that the article isn't simply a bit of localized zeitgeist on a particular subject. By the way, note that deleting this biography doesn't mean the pertinent material on her can't be merged into an appropriate article about the event. So even if this article is deleted that doesn't prevent the important facts of the article from appearing in Wikipedia. Finally note that just because an event is notable doesn't mean that everyone involved is notable. Thousands of people died in the September 11, 2001 attacks but that doesn't mean we should have an article about every single victim. So as a general rule just because a particular crime receives massive international attention doesn't mean that every single victim of the crime needs a seperate article. Dugwiki 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dugwiki. Much of the coverage is not just about her in relation to the massacre, but about her life in general. If this article is deleted, I ask that we all be honest with ourselves and recognise that deletion in this case is a rather clear case of invoking WP:IAR. The argument that "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't hold water in this case as it makes a clear exception for people who meet the notability criterion. -- Black Falcon 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (no objection to merging highlights into main VT incident article) While the event was notable, the person isn't on her own. If we end up with articles about multiple victims, I'd have no objection into merging into a List of VT Victims article if there isn't one already.
- Keep per Dugwiki RaveenS 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - isn't this part enough? "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school under the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial." to have her considered notable, and then added to her courageous actions during recent events?Justanothermutt 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Participating in the establishment of a public school? No, not enough. And "courageous actions"? She was gunned down and there is no basis for saying that she saved anyone. Sorry, she is just a victim.Medico80 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay - I'm pretty new to this (and excited to learn and be a part of the wikipedia community), so I don't know all the ins and outs of what would be 'notable' enough and such - When I read "instrumental in establishing", it seems a bit more than just "participating"..?.. The 'courageous actions' part, I was going from what I read in the current article about her trying to save her students and losing her life in the process... Justanothermutt 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. Notable enough for a subsection of the VTM page; not for her own bio yet. 18.85.18.16 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep After her death, her accomplishments have received sufficient attention to make her notable enough. These will be remembered on a scale worthy of an entry. Tfine80 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
keep it, change it, take the facts of her life accomplishments and write a good article about the lady who started a french school in what was once Acadia and is now Nova Scotia. look at it closely
- Comment If you read WP:BIO, you find the sentence "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage for Couture Nowak may not have been trivial, it is strictly incidental. The Oxford English Dictionary defines incidental as " 1. a. Occurring or liable to occur in fortuitous or subordinate conjunction with something else of which it forms no essential part; casual." This individual's notability is subordinate to the narrative of the tragedy at VTech. Pablosecca 04:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The multiple non-trivial published works about this person are all focused on her life and work, not an "incident". An incident inspired the reliable sources to write about this person, but that in no way makes the content of all the published works about her "incidental." --Oakshade 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course the newsitems go beyond her being killed, as the description of that fact would hardly exceed the length of one sentence, but the fact is that, as of now, she is only of interest to the media due to her recent killing. If reports on her would appear in the media over a longer span of time, I guess it would make a better claim for notability. As of now, the coverage is "incidental". PrinceGloria 09:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oy. I give up. Pablosecca 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The multiple non-trivial published works about this person are all focused on her life and work, not an "incident". An incident inspired the reliable sources to write about this person, but that in no way makes the content of all the published works about her "incidental." --Oakshade 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, at least for now. Does not pass WP:PROF, this is not the place for all victims from all killings or attacks around the world and time will show if she will pass WP:N. ArchStanton 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:PROF --24.200.156.62 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC) — 24.200.156.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep per SqueakBox --Rita Moritan 13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete
Does not meet WP:PROFInsufficient notability. I almost regret I wasn't there to be killed and hence become notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia.--Kamikaze 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC) - Delete. Youngamerican makes a good argument although the way he says it sounds almost like a deliberate caricature, but the basic idea holds true. BanyanTree, Rbelln, Nyttend and María also make good points. It appears that even the people advocating keeping acknowledge at this point that the article does not meet WP:PROF. The argument must therefore be made under WP:BIO. However, longstanding precedent is that in general victims of tragedies whose lives are reported in detail merely due to their being victims of horrific events does not count for purposes of WP:BIO. See WP:MEMORIAL as well as many precedents set by among other things, the myriad of Sept 11 AfDs and many articles about individuals who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cases like Sarah Payne are different because her death led directly to knew laws and regulations named after her. I strongly doubt that there will be any Couture-Nowak law made after this. This woman died tragically, and maybe even would have become a notable academic in her field if she had survived. However, she does not at present meet standard inclusion criteria. JoshuaZ 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - she nobly defended her students; had she been a soldier she would have been awarded a medal. What is not notable about such a death in such circumstances? --DevelopedMadness 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment Um what? If she were a soldier we wouldn't have an article about her so I fail to follow your logic. JoshuaZ 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yet Another Strong Keep for all of the many compelling and convincing reasons given above. This accomplished instructor, one of only a few professors killed in a historically and news-worthy disaster definitely merits encylopedic attention as well. --24.154.173.243 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia articles are not dispensed as means of recognition. I actually believe the rather laughable attempts of purporting exceptional qualities to Mme Couture-Nowak are in fact almost insulting her as a person killed in such circumstances... PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes. <KF> 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please also note this is NOT a vote, but a discussion. The decision would be made based on WP policies and guidelines and not personal convitions of whether the person in question is "worthy" or anything. The controversy here ensues as to the interpretation of policies and guidelines, so it would be good to get acquainted with them before joining the discussion. PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going to teach you about Wikipedia policies, and you are certainly not going to teach me about them. <KF> 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your above comment is the exact antithesis of an actual discussion. It presumes an inability and unwillingness to either exchange ideas or consider changing your mind. It is not at all helpful. JoshuaZ 00:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank God Wikipedia policy is vague on the notability criterion. If it were not, there wouldn't have been any need, or place, for the above discussion. While it's true that Jocelyne Couture-Nowak probably wouldn't have her own article today if she hadn't been killed, her death is not the only reason for the article. As I see it, some notability and her violent death in a well-documented shooting add up and influence each other so that her article is justified. This is my opinion, and I have expressed it in just one sentence: "worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes". This, I believe, does not express any inability or unwillingness to change my mind. Rather, it expresses what I think about this matter at the moment. The "You have your opinion, I have mine" refers to the preceding sentence, i.e. to whether I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies or not: PrinceGloria suggests I'm not, whereas I think I am. <KF> 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your above comment is the exact antithesis of an actual discussion. It presumes an inability and unwillingness to either exchange ideas or consider changing your mind. It is not at all helpful. JoshuaZ 00:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going to teach you about Wikipedia policies, and you are certainly not going to teach me about them. <KF> 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see what you say. For me, the acid test (or maybe that's too strong a phrase), or the big factor, is if I when I read an article, there's a sort of center or call it hook, to the article, which makes one go "Ah yes, that's why it's here." When I read the present subject's entry, I see a lot of details and bio notes, and I feel very much for the woman, but her reason for separate inclusion, the VTech incident, to me reads a footnote more than anything. Pablosecca 10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please also note this is NOT a vote, but a discussion. The decision would be made based on WP policies and guidelines and not personal convitions of whether the person in question is "worthy" or anything. The controversy here ensues as to the interpretation of policies and guidelines, so it would be good to get acquainted with them before joining the discussion. PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. People are coming to Wikipedia to search for her name specifically; clearly she's notable. She founded a school in Nova Scotia and acted heroically to protect her VT students. Fellow VT faculty victim Granata didn't found anything yet his entry isn't up for deletion. I'm tempted to call this misogyny. --Gisaster25 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Don't play the misogyny card just yet; I think the thinking is that Granata has been called prominent in his field, (eg, | Granata is a world expert) while Librescu performed a widely hailed feat of heroism -- and therefore both merit their own articles; whereas; the other professors were accomplished, or they would be professors, of course; but not notable in their own right to deserve mention outside the VTech article. Founding a school in NS isn't enough; and there are tens of thousands of professors in the world. Thoughts? Pablosecca 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree the misogyny claim is unfounded, but Librescu is not being included because of claims of heroism. He meets and exceeds WP:PROF. If Couture:Nowak did, there would be little argument about her inclusion. --Crunch 10:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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 delete per consensus. fishhead64 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Casathious Jones
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
Article seems like a hoax, and it's not sourced at all. Fails WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Delete The article also violates WP:AUTO. The proof.GreenJoe 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - well, Googling turns up nothing, outside of a single Amazon account - where he appears to enjoy Christmas music and classic singers. His records, and label, produce no GHits, the link to his Last.fm page returns "Sorry, this artist does not have a profile", and the IMDB entry lists him as being an extra in a decidedly trivial film. This is probably half a hoax, and half simply utter non-notablility. In either case, it's gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 00:33Z
- Do Not Delete I know Casathious personally, and he is well-loved in the community. He is an amazing singer and entertainer, and he has infact done all of the things listed in the artical. If you google Casathious Jones, he DOES pop up several different times. Infact, he is on YouTube as well. The reason his records and lable do not show GHits, is that they are only locally know in Rochester, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct14 (talk • contribs) — Oct14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That doesn't justify the lack of sources for the article. If you can improve it, then great. GreenJoe 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I am Casathious Jones, and as myself I deserve to plead my own case! I have made numerous CDs and I have addressed the issue of the lack of references. Now I have an excess of three references. Despite this, select others refuse to accept these references, although they are from admittedly reliable sources. In fact, if one is to look at famous people on Wikipedia, one will find that many a page has fewer references than my article (e.g. Debbie Reynolds, who has only one reference). Although I am by no means the star that Debbie Reynolds has come to be, it is undeniable that the article cites ample references. In my own defense, I am certainly not the only person who has edited and added to the article and keeping with Wikipedia's high standards, I continually delete material which, although true, cannot be proven. In conclusion, although my CDs have sold many copies, and I realize that I am not a legendary star, I still feel that this article should be acceptable to any who may come across it. By no means do I want this to be a self-promoting and biased article about myself and my successes, but I do want an encyclopedic reference such as this to be available for any who desire to find information about me, as one would search for any other person in such a manner, and I see no solid reason for its deletion. Thank you, Casathious Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) — R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Start a website. Wikipedia isn't free webspace. GreenJoe 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I have several of Casathious's CDs and have seen him live in concert. I don't think I can improve the article but as far as I can tell everything on it is true and I know that it is not a hoax. Sajbmz — Sajbmz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That's not enough to satisfy WP:V. GreenJoe 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely. Many articles cannot verify every mundane detail that is presented in them, but they have not been under as much scrutiny as the article currently in question. In fact, I feel, as do most others, that this article does a more than satisfactory job of referencing sources. --R.h.c.afounder1 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an excuse for this one to not properly cite. I'm still not satisfied that Casathious Jones is a real person. See WP:WAX GreenJoe 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that argument as to whether I exist or not had been cleared up ages ago. I am a real person, as we have already decided upon. I have a Social Security number, a passport, a birth certificate, et cetera. Granted, Casathious Jones is a pseudonym; my legal name is Casey Jones Costello. But that is no secret. --74.69.116.41 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — 74.69.116.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- How many comments must we make in order to meet your standards for edits of other topics? I notice you only happened to place that bulletin on users who spoke up for me. Had they agreed with your point of view, GreenJoe, I suspect you would not have placed such a bulletin on their comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.116.41 (talk • contribs)
- Had they voiced their opinion to delete and had only contributed to this article, they'd have it too. GreenJoe 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But my point is the users who have stuck up for me have not only contributed to this one article. If you look at them, they have all contributed to many. Granted, they do not have as many edits as you, but they still have many. Therefore I am unsure of why you are doing what you are doing; please address this in your next response. --R.h.c.afounder1 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Had they voiced their opinion to delete and had only contributed to this article, they'd have it too. GreenJoe 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an excuse for this one to not properly cite. I'm still not satisfied that Casathious Jones is a real person. See WP:WAX GreenJoe 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Completely nn. Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom, fails all relevant policies. Thewinchester (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- In response to Janejellyroll, according to WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." The article in question meets this criteria, and whether or not you have heard of Casathious Jones is irrelevant.--74.69.116.41 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
