Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia Tech shooting

Add links
Source: 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Virginia Tech shooting

2011 Virginia Tech shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable news event. Belongs on List of attacks related to post-secondary schools but isn't notable enough for its own article. Wikipedia is not a news site. Go to Wikinews if you want a journalistic article. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but change title - rather not related with Virginia Tech Every human life, especially forcefully given is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. All murders are always inspected by lots of people, and also often for psychological resources given as examples. Even the highest criminal in most countries is the killing someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now Major news event, the deletion of which probably might be slightly negative for Wikipedia. Delete in maybe a week or so, not hours after the event. Buggie111 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, AFDs can be ended early with the outcome being delete. But only when there is clear policy to back it up. Though this is a case involving news, it's more grey so the AFD will likely run a few days at least before an Admin will even want to touch closing it.--RadioFan (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Double murders are not worthy of Wikipedia articles, and the particular location of this incident shouldn't change that fact.
  • Delete please see WP:NOTNEWS, every other !keep vote is some variation of "it's in the headlines" or "major news event". What presumption of notability do you think applies in this case? Every "too early to tell if this is notable" !keep vote I feel is a "too early to have this article" argument. The onus is on the article to clearly show notability, now. If there was some reasonable chance that this incident would be notable a year from now I'd be open-minded. But there isn't, and no expertise is required in appreciating that - it's the way the news and world is today. I blame Jimbo Wales for lack of sufficient branding of Wikinews, where an article on 2 related deaths by firearm (OMG!) created hours after the event would be less inappropriate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now I have to go with this too, it currently is not worth having its own article but there is a possibility it could end up getting a lot of coverage because of the massacre in 2007 or so (or it will just be forgotten about right away)Glacialfox (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Virginia Tech massacreVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University as a subsection — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I second this Glacialfox (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
....their not exactly related, barring the fact they occurred at the same location, more or less. Probably just add this to the U's page, if anyone's thinking merge. Buggie111 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This really has nothing to do with the other shooting. SilverserenC 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I've altered my vote to place it as a subsection at Virginia Tech's school page instead. There's not currently a subsection for the Virginia Tech massacre there, but we can add subsections for both incidents, one after the other — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning it at all in the article on the school would give the incident undue weight. Do you propose that every murder case at or near every university should be listed in the article about the university? That would amount to dozens of alleged murders for the average large US university, over the years. If I pick a random university, Ohio State, then its article would have to mention alleged murders on or near campus in at least 1919, 1925, 1929, 1949, 1966, 1984, 1997 (the last the killing of a police officer), 2007 and 2008. Some of the earlier crimes were multiple murders. Such a crime listing would be clearly inappropriate in a university article, even though some of them got national coverage. It is only "recentism" that makes it appealing to have an article about every violent crime we hear about in the news. Edison (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikkipedia is not the newspaper. A single murder by someone who in turn dies of gunshot wounds is not a worthy encyclopedia article. Notability is not inherited, so this shouldn't ride on the coattails of the 2007 massacre, and the two are significantly different, so this shouldn't be merged to the other article. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Merge with the 2007 shooting article, as "2011 Shooting" or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.227.116 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The main university article had a single sentence on the 2007 incident yesterday. This is far more appropriate for the article on the police department than the university.--RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notable and newsworthy are not the same thing. That's why we have wikinews. The widespread media coverage the keep !votes are pointing to is largely reprints of AP articles and 24 hours later and all but the local news sources have forgotten about this story. Had students been involved or the alert system which was put in place after 2007 failed this might be noteworthy, but it's not. There isn't a dedicated article titles 2006 Virginia Tech shooting for the deputy that was killed by a fugitive near the campus.--RadioFan (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a blip on the news radar. Even in the U.S, the media has moved on. The story of course appeared in the morning newspapers since it took place around 12:30 EST the previous day and was pretty much wrapped by a news conference 4 hours later.--RadioFan (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is certainly not an event worth having a dedicated page to on Wikipedia. Are we going to start creating pages for every police officer who gets murdered? Or every murder or killing that happens on or near a college campus? Marty Martin (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Today in the Almelo, the Netherlands a police officer in training shot and killed his girlfriend in a supermarket where she worked as checkout girl and then killed himself. Should we have an article about that as well? The Virginia Tech shooting is in the same order. Just that it is near a location where a previous massacre happened doesn't change that. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 00:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"31,000 people" did not go on "lockdown", I believe you took the total enrollment for VT and assumed, incorrectly, that every single person was in class at that time. Anytime in America today when there is a shooting at the Quickie Mart, all schools in the area will be locked down - standard and routine. Along with SWAT and searches and everything else that happens in an act of violence that, while tragic and every human life matters, is non-notable. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia Tech requires only freshman to live on campus so that number was probably slightly larger than 1/4 of that. It was reading day with no classes in session so the number of faculty on campus was limited. Yes a lot of people were "locked down" but more were locked down in the 20 schools in the Montgomery County School system that day as well. Should this article be called 2011 Montgomery County Schools shooting? The media wanted (yesterday at least) to draw parallels with 2007 that just aren't there. Wikipedia shouldn't do the same. It should be better than that.--RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of people on lockdown or the actions of the police therein don't have to do with anything. And any comparison to other deaths and/or suicides in the world is spurious, as all we care about is the coverage. If the coverage is ongoing and/or there are specific results that come from this incident, then it is notable. As coverage is still ongoing, it is impossible to tell if this will be notable or non-notable in the long run. That's why I voted that this AfD should wait a few weeks, to see if coverage continues or not. SilverserenC 02:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea. I strongly doubt that the current title would have been used if it was not for the original shooting. I also am against a merge to the article about the massacre since there seems to be no link between the two other than location. (Ie it was not a copycat, homage, or even someone connected to the school).--199.91.207.3 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The fact that it happened at Virginia Tech, where the 2007 massacre happened, warrants no reason for this incident to have its own article. Murders happen every day and this particular one should not have its own article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: First, Keep this article, then move it to Virginia Tech massacre and rename that page Virginia Tech shootings. Two articles, same situation (shootings), thankfully two completely different outcomes (though the officer passing away the other day is sad). I think, this way, this will encompass the 2007 incident and the 2011 incident (and God forbid any others) in one article. Plus, with new information coming out on the shooter and just why he stole a car in Radford, Virginia and shot a VT cop on campus (remember, it was on campus and a Virginia Tech cop) still hasn't been either learned or released, so new information is still to come out on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently oppose renaming this article to Virginia Tech massacre. Murder of a police officer followed by suicide of the murderer != massacre. I hope I'm misunderstanding the above. --RadioFan (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are. Misunderstanding it, that is. The users above want to move the Massacre article to a more general Virginia Tech shootings article and then merge this one into that new general article, which would cover the massacre from 2007, this new shooting, and any more shootings that might happen in the future. SilverserenC 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren is correct, I am only suggesting a merger of the Virginia Tech massacre and 2011 Virginia Tech shooting articles into one and then renaming the combined article as Virginia Tech shootings.
Also, someone else already had the same idea. That's what I get for posting before reading what is already posted. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" ... and any more shootings that might happen in the future." Oh, Silverseren, yes, of course your statement is accurate, but did you have to say it? Just too horrible to think about. Anyway, my sincere thanks for accurately expressing the idea that Neutralhomer and I came up with independent of one another. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure an experienced admin cant find a more specific outcome and explain the decision well. If you look at the 'keep' !votes, nearly all argue that it's too soon to delete. By the time an admin acts on this, more time will have passed and we'll have a better idea about whether this is touchstone event or just another tragic loss of a police officer. The closing admin will also take into account the weight of the arguments being made. The 'delete' and 'merge' !votes are generally making specific arguments often tied to wiki policy and guidelines. The 'keep' !votes are generally pretty vague and those editors should really expand on their thoughts here, preferably similarly tied to policy and guidelines. In short, delete because of this policy holds far more weight than keep, just 'cause. But there is still time to change minds.--RadioFan (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i dont agree there, I think that those saying delete are quite vague while the Keep !votes have more weight and substance when reading them overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a whole lot of "too soon to delete" and "it made headlines" and not a whole lot of "this article meets policy X,Y,Z"--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the comment made by User:TommyBoy: "While I acknowledge that incidents such as this are tragic, I do not think a stand-alone article is warranted in this case, but the most appropriate place to mention this incident on Wikipedia would be the "History" section of the main Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University article, whereas the Virginia Tech massacre article should remain separate due to the historic scale of the 2007 shootings." Boneyard90 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-Up Comment: Let me again explain. User:HuskyHuskie and I's idea is not to move the 2011 Virginia Tech shooting article to Virginia Tech massacre. The idea is to merge the two together (since they are both about Virginia Tech and both happened on the Virginia Tech campus) and rename the combined article (both the 2007 and 2011 events) as Virginia Tech shootings (currently a redirect to the 2007 page). The new page would have all the information in the 2007 and 2011 articles, but in one place. Remember, the 2011 shooting just happened on December 8th, 3 days ago, so information will continue to come out (probably for weeks to come) on motive, ways to make the campus safer (which happened after 2007) and so on. This isn't a "done and over with" situation and won't be over with in a "few days". This isn't CSI and we don't get all our answers in an hour. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understood your position, but I'd be against merging the 2011 article in with the article on the 2007 shooting. The 2011 incident is not connected to the 2007 shooting in any way. There are one or two parallels (they both happened on the same campus), but the 2011 incident should be nothing more than a footnote in the university's history, barely worth mentioning except that it was a police officer who was killed. Also, I know that more information (though it appears unlikely at this point), and (haha), this isn't CSI, which is why these articles are frustrating, and I don't think this article should have been written just yet, as it is still "news", but it seems there are editors who can't wait to be the first to write up a new article, and Wikipedia doesn't yet have an effective way of dealing with the issue except for the policy WP:NOT#NEWS.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, it isn't to the scale of the 2007 shootings, but it was on the VT campus and it was a Virginia Tech police officer. A weird oddity in the day of the 2011 shooting was that the University President, the Virginia Tech Police Chief and other university officials were on Capitol Hill in relation to the 2007 shootings. So, while it is remote, there is a connection between the two events. An article can be written at anytime after an incident, an hour, a day, 2 weeks, whenever. There isn't a rule that says that the article has to be written after the "final word" is written. If that were true, we wouldn't have half the article we have on infinite subjects. I don't agree that the "final word" has been written in this one. Remember, we don't know why this guy somehow robbed a real estate office, stole one of their cars in Radford, Virginia (a town near VT) and then just disappeared for 24 hours before appearing on the campus the following morning and for no reason (that is currently known) shot a VT cop and then killed himself. That isn't known yet and investigations take time. There is the incident, the flurry of activity and posts, then nothing, a week later there is more news and that happens about once a week generally. Then the final reports about a year later (give or take a couple months). So this isn't the final word. Remember, University officials were in DC in relation to the 2007 incident...that's 4 1/2 years ago. Not the final word there either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are already so many shootings on this wiki with just one or two deaths, even a few that have none, so it makes sense to keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.227.116 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I could easily use those reasons in support of a delete: "There are already so many shootings on this wiki with just one or two deaths, it makes sense to delete this article, and move to delete some of the others too." Boneyard90 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneyard90: First of all, I disagree with Neutralhomer's sincere attempts to demonstrate a connection between the two shootings. His reasoning is tenuous and irrelevant to our decision here. This should be about our readers. Let me explain:
The 2011 incident is not connected to the 2007 shooting in any way. Boneyard, to someone with the information you and I possess, that statement appears reasonable. But to a young person trying to learn about the shootings, such a statement is not only not reasonable, it's asinine. Imagine a 12-year old who has heard this news coming to Wikipedia and typing in Virginia Tech shooting. He's going to learn about the 2007 shooting, and he'll be totally confused. Why? Because these shootings are connected in at least one (arguably superficial) way: They are both shootings that took place on the same campus and made national news.
This shouldn't be about parsing Wikipedia policies to determine what is "correct", this is about making sure our first mission--providing accurate information to our general readers--is upheld. Personally I don't think this most recent shooting would have even necessarily made national news except for the fact that it was at VT. Had this taken place at Western Illinois University it would have been a local story. But another shooting at VT (or NIU) is simply going to resonate with the media and get coverage.
Anyway, I believe we have consensus that a separate article for this shooting is not warranted. So the question is, should this information be included somewhere in Wikipedia? Again, there is clear consensus that is should be somewhere. So the question is, where will this information best serve the reader? If you separate it from the 2007 shootings altogether, you will confuse at least some readers. I would also argue that it's simply too insignificant to include in the main Virginia Tech article. (Yes, it was tragic that a person--one person--was killed. But you know what? That's happened other times at VT and we're not going to include all those in the article.) I believe the best choice is the HuskyHuskie/Neutralhomer proposal, which organizes information with the reader in mind, making this new story a minor section (but touched upon in the lead section) of a combined article. This will best help our readers find clarity. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When one says "another shooting" it really is inaccurate regarding the true crime stats at Virginia Tech. There have been maybe two alerts since 2007 regarding shots fired. And one of those was a false alarm, another was related to a suicide, if I'm not mistaken. You guys are buying the hype and misinformation. The crime stats don't reflect the stuff you're writing here as reasons to support a stand-alone article. In fact, compared to other campuses and communities, this campus is relatively quiet. It's hype... sales papers and gets viewers on TV, but it's not FACT. VT PD Crime Stats. This is somehow becoming the benchmark and the gold standard of violent crime on campus, though the crime stats don't reflect it. There are more violent crimes at VCU or other urban school around the world than in Blacksburg, VA. Hype, plain and simple. --Possum4all (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possum, I think if you'll carefully read the second half of the comments here, you'll see that the consensus is moving away from the notion of keeping a separate article. The question now seems to be, where should this information be placed? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough, but I want to add that the above phrase reflects a "bias" here that's not true. It's a similar bias reflected in the title for the April 16th shooting, too, I think. I just want to remind folks that there hasn't been "another shooting" at Virginia Tech in four years that's outside of the typical crime stats for similarly sized towns, cities and campuses. Also, the stats and data are very transparent for all colleges and especially Virginia Tech. Crime Logs So it would be very helpful if folks steered clear of conjecture about the culture, and maybe just read the crime stats without a full picture of said stats.--Possum4all (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is ultimately the murder of a police officer, it should be covered in the article on the department.--RadioFan (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal:Why start another page or include this in the History of the main VT page? It's being ruled a murder-suicide by State Police and is nearly 5 years after the April 16th shootings? As I said above, I don't think it should be listed, nor should it have it's own entry. Maybe, though, there SHOULD be a Virginia Tech Police entry and info surrounding this story could appear there along with substantive links / info about VT's Cleary Act data, the VT Alerts system (which is being championed for working well in this case) and included information about the Department, Fallen Officers, etc..--Possum4all (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I dont think Mr. Lidle has weighed in on this topic. This !vote reads like an argument without an argument.--RadioFan (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means this. Buggie111 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked Cory is a girls' name. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly OT: I've seen guys named Cory as well. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Cory Doctorow SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 13:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and weak keep for lack of anything suitable to merge it into. I don't especially want an article violence at Virginia Tech. We have separate articles for William Morva and Murder of Yang Xin, the latter of which is far less notable than this one. All three cases seem to have garnered enough national attention as to pass notability with flying colors. --B (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well those are pretty weak on notability as well. Those cases didn't spark a national debate or led to changes in legislation or public opinion or something like that, giving them lasting notability. If they went up for AfD I'd be inclined to support deletion. Although Yang Xin's murder is unusual because of the way he was killed, after all how many people are decapitated? SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not temporary. The murder of Officer Crouse was covered by every news outlet in the country. While it's true that if the same thing had happened at, say, Old Dominion University, where there are frequently murders nearby, it might not even be the lead item on the local news, that doesn't really matter. Wikipedia reflects what is notable - it doesn't confer that notability. The media has decided that this murder matters and so at Wikipedia, that means we have an article on it. --B (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yesterday's newspaper will be used to wrap up today's fish. Most news is fleeting. So even widespread coverage should be treated with caution. If a case is notable it should still be of interest to people reading about it in 5 years time. Let alone 100 years later. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It won't be any interest to anyone in two months' time, never mind five years. This AfD would pass by acclaim then when WP:RECENTISM isn't such a factor - no crystal ball necessary for that prognostication. Many editors have come to this AfD because they came to Wikipedia that day desiring to read more about a news event, and are reacting to having that utility taken away from them - an understandable, if incorrect, reaction. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • And you can tell that this wont be news in 5 years.Ok so you own a crystal ball? Can you share it? Less speculations please...--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The media is losing interest in this story the spike on Dec 7 and 8 was waned much more quickly than it did in 2007. The 2011 incident wrapped up quickly, turned out to be more comparable to the murders of police officers in any environment (not just a college campus) and had few salacious details to continue reporting on. It's also worth considering the news media's interest in a subject (i.e. count of news articles published) vs. the public's interest (google searches) here. They dont always match up, especially days and months after an incident.--RadioFan (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well of course the news media loses interest more quickly than they did in the 2007 shooting. The 2007 shooting is the worst school shooting in history, whereas the murder of Officer Crouse was only the murder of one police officer, which according to CNN, has happened 62 times this year. Most of the other 61, however, didn't make national headlines at all. The fact that Officer Crouse's murder was widely covered in every media outlet makes it pass the notability criteria with flying colors. --B (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well the Bath School disaster had more victims but wasn't a school shooting. Anyways the only reason why Officer Crouse's murder got so much attention in media is because it happened near the location of the Virginia Tech massacre. We should use a loose interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED for this case. Otherwise every murder on the Virginia Tech campus could get its own article referring the 2007 massacre. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although horrible, it is just one of the many shootings the occur yearly in the United States. As so, it is not notable. Besides that, it is proof of the systemic bias of Wikipedia towards subjects related to the USA. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Virginia_Tech_shooting&oldid=1137517143"