Talk:Wayne Chiang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Contest deletion

This guy has received a lot of attention and media coverage in the past couple of days - certainly enough to be included in Wikipedia. I agree that giving the topic its own page is a bit of a stretch, but the article on the massacre itself is already bursting at the seams! At least until the dust settles, and we can see what needs to go where, I suggest retention of this article. Thanks Yeanold Viskersenn 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This guy is in no way notable, except that he was confused for a notable person. This violates A7, and should be deleted. A fair compromise might be a sentence or two in the main article, but its own page is not neccessary. Kntrabssi 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the person satisfies the WP:Notability criteria "Multiple features in credible news media." as demonstrated here. I understand this could be considered a borderline case - but I think this particular one is the right side of the border. Yeanold Viskersenn 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but he's right. it does fill the objectives - "General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable - It might be worth an AfD, but even that might be borderline. Hawker Typhoon 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The victims have been included in many, MANY news sources as well, and many of those pages are being deleted per A7 violations. Kntrabssi 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect? Hawker Typhoon 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for that. Kntrabssi 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough then - I only created this page because of the already considerable length of the main article on the massacre.Yeanold Viskersenn 14:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very notable, and is in no way a speedy delete. We have an entire article on the security guard falsely blamed for the Atlanta Olympic Bombings, and this should be no different. Coolgamer 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He's very notable. His notoriety has crashed some of VT's servers :) Seriously though, he's getting interviewed right and left. Geraldo basically said "this is the guy" without coming out and saying it. --Travis panickedthumb 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) common guys, how is he even a victim? give me a break! The real victimes are the ones killed, whose loved ones' lives are completely shattered. For him, 15 seconds of notoriety, Let us all just move on shall we?

He is notable, and worthy of his own page. His reputation was destroyed by rash decisions made by the media, not unlike the Duke LAX players. Fsu23phd 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the first victim of the massacres, Ryan Clark, does not have a page of his own. Kntrabssi 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to contest the deletion since it is a good example of bad journalism and knee-jerk behavior. The fact that this guy was falsely named on national television adds some significance to the idea of having a parent page about modern day journalism. This most certainly deserves to be cited in such an articles criticisms section. This person, the security guard at the Atlanta Olympics Bombing, and other people make up a pattern worth describing in detail. 1630 EST, 19 April 2007

KEEP! I vote keep, he deserves the truth to be out there about his innocence. And he is a part of the whole VTech shootings story.

Keep! This guy was clearly innnocent. If we don't let him keep his innocence, as he is part of the VTech massacres - we are not going to learn from our mistakes, now, are we? So, I suggest we keep it for the sake of remembering our error. And by the way - just look at the sources the writer has cited...isn't that hard work enough?

I think by now everyone knows who the murder is. Anyways, Wikipedia is not a news source, it is an encyclopedia. Can anyone really cite a reason this person should be here, other than he WASN'T the murder? The only difference between myself and this guy is that Geraldo Rivera said he did it. Kntrabssi 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To whomever restored this, please see the compromise suggested above. We have agreed to merge and redirect this page to [[Virginia Tech Massacre}} as there is information there about him. Kntrabssi 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't do that. You have to follow process at AfD. If you can arrange a speedy close there, that's fine, but you can't leave a non-closed AfD discussion without the pointers to it. --Trovatore 01:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually this was a contested speedy delete which somehow got changed into an AFD (I didn't realize this was changed). In light of this new information I will share my thoughts there. Kntrabssi 02:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the creator of this article, and I am happy enough with how the discussions turned out, if that matters at all.. Yeanold Viskersenn 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It might matter -- go tell them at the AfD discussion. I don't have a dog in this fight; I just didn't want to see the discussion orphaned without being closed. --Trovatore 05:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to modify

{{Editprotected}}Modify redirect. This protected redirect should be moved to Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre. Chiang's name does not feature in the Virginia Tech massacre article, and any person searching for his entry will have a hard time. He was part of the media misreporting, and a paragraph has been added to the page where the amended redirect should go. Ohconfucius 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Change made as he is mentioned in new target and not at old target. -- JLaTondre 22:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)