Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto


 * 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   no consensus. Closing this a little early (EDIT: actually, it's been a little over two weeks) as it is quite clear that an out-and-out deletion is not going to happen, and AFD is not for the creation / retargeting of redirects. The general !voting pattern is indeed pro-redirect, but the depth of sources and WP:VICTIM suggests that an article may be valid. Further discussion can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Edit: — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Leigh Soto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically, WP is not a memorial. As laudable as her actions were, they are part and parcel of the Sandy Hook massacre, and her biography is only notable in that sense. Her life will never be discussed outside of it, and a redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the proper thing to do. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that very well--redirect is a proper thing to do, but so is deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect To Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect - As this article does not serve encyclopedic purpose outside of the shooting, it should redirect to the main article.Samvnkauffman (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Subject has no notability beyond this single event. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:BLP1E. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The only notability of the subject is her death which is covered in another article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect TiMike (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that wikipedia is not a memorial, but how about we wait until the bodies are cold and the news stories have settled down, and folks have had a chance to write - or not - about this person before voting to delete this, shall we? --Overand (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Per Deletion review/Log/2012 December 23, the AfD should be run for the full seven days. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting per WP:BLP1E. Although I fully feel upset about the people who died in the incident, this entry should be redirected because Wikipedia is not a memorial service and the person in question will never be notable outside this incident. TBrandley (what's up) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article stands on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. This particular individual, as WP:VICTIM details, has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event. Furthermore, we have precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD.
 * Regarding WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:
 * Regarding WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:




 * The following reliable sources cover Victoria Leigh Soto in an exclusive manner:


 * The New York Times: Remembering the Passion of a Teacher Who Died Protecting Students
 * The Huffington Post: Victoria Soto, Slain Sandy Hook Teacher, Remembered As Selfless Hero
 * The Huffington Post: Victoria Soto, Newtown Teacher, Emerges As Hero After Shooting
 * The Guardian: Victoria Soto: Sandy Hook teacher who wanted to mould young minds
 * WHDH: Sandy Hook hero: Victoria Soto
 * and many others as shown by a Google News search with the parameters: Victoria Soto Sandy Hook
 * Regarding WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
 * Furthermore, Soto's article is referenced with reliable sources (Fox News, Huffington Post, El Nuevo Día, LA News, etc). In addition, we do have a policy for this particular case per WP:VICTIM which states:
 * So our job is to examine wether those two statements are true for Soto. Lets split them up:
 * Did Soto have a "large role"? The answer would be, yes, Soto had a large role, since Soto has to be compared with all others involved in the event. Did the janitor have a large role? No. The school bus driver? No. Soto? Yes, she did have a large role. Not only was she a victim, she also had a significant role within the event's context: she voluntarily and selflessly put herself between the attacker and other victims.
 * Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on the article.
 * Now we have the second part:
 * Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.
 * So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.
 * Regarding precendets, even though Wikipedia is not based on precedents (see WP:PRECEDENT), there is no prima faciae here since there are precedents that this type of articles rightfully belong to Wikipedia. For example, see William David Sanders, victim of the Columbine High School massacre which is pretty much a mirror of this article, and Jamie Bishop, victim of the Virginia Tech massacre, who underwent an AfD who's conclusion was that his involvement in the shooting and coverage by reliable sources qualified him as notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the very same case for Soto.
 * Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence.
 * As closing remarks, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should not substitute discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS we must state, rather than vote, on why this should be deleted or kept. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on the article.
 * Now we have the second part:
 * Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.
 * So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.
 * Regarding precendets, even though Wikipedia is not based on precedents (see WP:PRECEDENT), there is no prima faciae here since there are precedents that this type of articles rightfully belong to Wikipedia. For example, see William David Sanders, victim of the Columbine High School massacre which is pretty much a mirror of this article, and Jamie Bishop, victim of the Virginia Tech massacre, who underwent an AfD who's conclusion was that his involvement in the shooting and coverage by reliable sources qualified him as notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the very same case for Soto.
 * Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence.
 * As closing remarks, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should not substitute discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS we must state, rather than vote, on why this should be deleted or kept. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding precendets, even though Wikipedia is not based on precedents (see WP:PRECEDENT), there is no prima faciae here since there are precedents that this type of articles rightfully belong to Wikipedia. For example, see William David Sanders, victim of the Columbine High School massacre which is pretty much a mirror of this article, and Jamie Bishop, victim of the Virginia Tech massacre, who underwent an AfD who's conclusion was that his involvement in the shooting and coverage by reliable sources qualified him as notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the very same case for Soto.
 * Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence.
 * As closing remarks, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should not substitute discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS we must state, rather than vote, on why this should be deleted or kept. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As closing remarks, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should not substitute discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS we must state, rather than vote, on why this should be deleted or kept. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - In my opinion the Victoria Leigh Soto deserves an article. Notable? She saved the lives of the majority of her students and had been hailed as a hero by the international media. By saving the lives of children from being murdered she acted above and beyond of what is expected. Had she been a soldier, she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Such reasoning as "Subject has no notability beyond this single event", does not even make any sense. Rosa Parks became notable because of a single event. Her single event was used by others to focus on the Civil Rights issues of the United States. The fact that the Connecticut State University announced the creation of the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" in her honor, tells us that she will be remembered for actions, not only by those affected, but by the students who will be the recipients of the scholarship. It is a question of time before a school or avenue be named after her. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - She is widely acclaimed as one of the few heros of the massacre. Her notability raises from the fact that she rose to the ocassion. Whether or not her classroom children survived is immaterial: it is an undisputed fact that she gave her life for the students that had been entrusted to her. The scholarship fund, etc., set up further add to her notability. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

"The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person... When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate."
 * Keep She is very notable, her actions where heroic in a tragic event, she has been mentioned several times in almost every major news network.  Jay Jay What did I do? 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Everything needed can be covered there. We don't even have an article on the shooter... --Conti|✉ 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Sandy Hook Shooting article (whatever it's name may be in the future). Her actions were great, she saved kids. Don't take this the wrong way, but we don't need to be a memorial to that. She is notable for only one event. Before Ahnoneemoos continues shooting down anyone who brings up BLP1E, please reference this policy. Excerpt follows:
 * That policy clearly says that we shouldn't have biographies unless they were a major part of a major event. She didn't have anything to do with the shooting other than being a part of the school it occured at, and doing what she was hired to do (protect her children). That does not work for notability. She did a heroic thing, yes, but that doesn't mean we need to have an article on her. Plus, most of the article right now is just a duplicate of information already in the shooting's article, or information we wouldn't normally have in a biographical article anyway. gwickwire  talk edits 00:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:BIO1E Soto satisfies all criteria for a standalone article. Here, let's examine it rather than just linking to it:
 * Is the event "highly significant"? Per NBC, the event is the second worst shooting in the history of the United States. That's makes it "highly significant". Was Soto's role "large" within the context of the event? Per the arguments presented above already, yes, Soto had a "large role" within the event's context.
 * Was her role large? No. She shot nobody. She was just caught in the crosshairs. She had nothing to do with the actual shooting, she was only a victim of it. Sorry. gwickwire  talk edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that very same page holds Wikipedia's policy for this specific matter, in case you missed it: WP:VICTIM is a soft redirect to Notability (people) which hosts WP:BIO1E as well. So, as you can see, we already have a policy for these circumstances! Evenmoreso, the policy is very clear! Once again, per WP:VICTIM, Soto satisfies all criteria for a standalone article.
 * No she doesn't. She violates WP:BIO1E. Also, I think it might be good if you stop rehashing your arguments with everyone who says redirect. That keeps the page cleaner. Thanks. gwickwire  talk edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No she doesn't. She violates WP:BIO1E. Also, I think it might be good if you stop rehashing your arguments with everyone who says redirect. That keeps the page cleaner. Thanks. gwickwire  talk edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:BIO1E, I think one can argue that every victim was notable in their own way for the shooting and each victim did get coverage in the media, does this mean that this one person should have their own article? No, should she be mentioned on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. Soto satisfies WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM covers her circumstances. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Life, unfortunately is sometimes boiled down to a single act, in life or in death and history is not only about The acts of Presidents. As societies we must recognize this.  We have the Congressional Medal of Honor in The US.  Sometimes we must recognize the single act of everyday civilians for posterity and do so knowing that there are so many that we cannot possibly recognize, it speaks to who we are.  history and culture is not written by congressmen and kings.  We are talking about maybe 3k of space in a world where storage is increasingle and exponentially shrinking in cost.  Archaeologists thousands of years from now (or more) might only be able to judge our world society based on these few bytes.  Their equivalent of a broken urn.   Let us record our true heros who unarmed stood up to monsters to save our children.  It's cheap, it's effortless to us.  Make good decisions esteemed editors..-Justanonymous (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the fact is Soto's unselfish sacrifice has spawned two massive petitions on the We the People petition website at the White House's official website as well as Change.org proves that people want to memorialized the death of a person gone too soon. The petitions demand that President Obama a posthumous Medal of Freedom for her sacrifice as well as the renaming of a street in her honor in Newton. If the street is renamed, which it most likely will be, than the subject has substantial notability for an article on this site.--XLR8TION (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. BLP1E (even though she is no longer alive) still applies here: her only notable facet of her live was her last act of sacrifice to protect the children; this does not require a separate article to cover one action.  This is not to say that if she is give a Congressional Medal or that some law is named after her, that we can consider recreating the article, but that's all CRYSTAL. Further, I would worry this would become a memorial because really that's all the focus would be on at this time.  Even past that, any discussion of her role in the events of Sandy Hook would duplicate the discussion already on that article.  All that is appropriate for an encyclopedia about her is stated in the Sandy Hook article. --M ASEM  (t) 00:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
 * Regarding your other arguments, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and, therefore, is not constrained on what it can host. You need to look at Soto from an WP:NPOV: was this person (whoever she is) significantly covered by reliable sources in an exclusive manner? Forget the event or who she was. Was she covered persistently by reliable sources? If the answer is yes then that's enough merit for inclusion on Wikipedia: regardless of how we feel about it or our personal opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not host.
 * Now, regarding WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, you need to first understand why that policy was created and, second, what that policy entails. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL was created because people were creating articles of deceased people that didn't put their life in context to merit a standalone article. See for example: WP:RIP; now that's a memorial. It just says who they were, how they died, and that they were Wikipedians. Soto's article, however, is not a memorial: it details how she was involved in an event with historic significance and what was her role in such event. Notice we don't care what the event was nor what what she actually did: we only care about the fact that (1) the event was historically significant and that (2) she had a significant role within the event's context.
 * I understand your concerns, but the truth is that in this particular case wether we like it or not, Soto satisfies all criteria. This is based on facts and evidence, not on our personal opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not be.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However harsh this may sound, she did only one thing in the event - attempt to protect her students and got shot doing it. That is not a significant role in the event. This is well covered in the Sandy Hook article. As her life before being killed was non-notable, only post-death honorariums will increase her notability for an article. You need to read all of BLP1E because it gives several additional points of consideration, and not simply summated by the one phrase you are requoting over and over. --M ASEM (t) 01:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that WP:BLP1E does not apply to this case, period; regardless of what the whole policy states. It just does not apply to Soto because she is dead. Furthermore, we have a specific policy for these matters already: WP:VICTIM. Now, it does not matter wether she did one, two, three, or a million things. What matters is if the event and her role within the event was significantly covered by reliable sources. In Soto's case both criteria are easily fulfilled. Furthermore, and to counterargument your argument, Soto actually did more than one thing: (1) putting herself between the attacker and the victims, (2) being a victim herself, (3) have a fund in her name, and (4) be covered significantly by reliable sources several times. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes BLP1E applies even though she's dead, because she was only notable for one event, and so close to her death, we have no idea of any enduring coverage - the whole intent of BLP1E. Be aware every "policy" you are quoting are actually guidelines, and none of them demand a stand-alone article just because they are met, just that a stand-alone article is possible. --M ASEM  (t) 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahnoneemoos: If you are so concerned that BLP1E doesn't apply because she's dead, see BIO1E which applies to all biographies. She is only notable for one event, therefore, BIO1E applies. Her role was not a large enough role in the event to allow an article. She was not the shooter. The shooter, maybe, should get his own article eventually. She was a victim. She was not a part of the event, she was a victim of the event. There is nothing in WP:VICTIM that says she should have her own article, but there's a lot in WP:VICTIM that says she shouldn't, and excerpts follow: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The victim... [is the subject of] coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. No source I have seen devotes an entire article (not a short stubby article, but an entire normal length for the source article) to her actions. Sorry. gwickwire  talk edits 20:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that WP:BLP1E does not apply to this case, period; regardless of what the whole policy states. It just does not apply to Soto because she is dead. Furthermore, we have a specific policy for these matters already: WP:VICTIM. Now, it does not matter wether she did one, two, three, or a million things. What matters is if the event and her role within the event was significantly covered by reliable sources. In Soto's case both criteria are easily fulfilled. Furthermore, and to counterargument your argument, Soto actually did more than one thing: (1) putting herself between the attacker and the victims, (2) being a victim herself, (3) have a fund in her name, and (4) be covered significantly by reliable sources several times. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes BLP1E applies even though she's dead, because she was only notable for one event, and so close to her death, we have no idea of any enduring coverage - the whole intent of BLP1E. Be aware every "policy" you are quoting are actually guidelines, and none of them demand a stand-alone article just because they are met, just that a stand-alone article is possible. --M ASEM  (t) 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahnoneemoos: If you are so concerned that BLP1E doesn't apply because she's dead, see BIO1E which applies to all biographies. She is only notable for one event, therefore, BIO1E applies. Her role was not a large enough role in the event to allow an article. She was not the shooter. The shooter, maybe, should get his own article eventually. She was a victim. She was not a part of the event, she was a victim of the event. There is nothing in WP:VICTIM that says she should have her own article, but there's a lot in WP:VICTIM that says she shouldn't, and excerpts follow: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The victim... [is the subject of] coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. No source I have seen devotes an entire article (not a short stubby article, but an entire normal length for the source article) to her actions. Sorry. gwickwire  talk edits 20:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe that the expression used by the nominator "Her life will never be discussed outside of it" is POV and should not be included. Soto will always be remembered for her brave actions, especially every year when the Connecticut State University awards the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" to its deserving students. The most ridiculous statement that I have read so far here is "She didn't have anything to do with the shooting other than being a part of the school it occurred at, and doing what she was hired to do (protect her children)." First of all, she sacrificed her live and saved many children by standing between them and the shooter. Second of all, she was hired to teach and was not required to give her life for others. Had she been a soldier she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor for her sacrifice. Why not then delete or redirect every article written about those who were awarded the Medal of Honor? After all with the reasoning here we can assume that theirs was an act of a single event and that they will be forgotten? Antonio Martin (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where we have to learn that we have to write the encyclopedia from a compassionate-less POV (hence NOT#MEMORIAL). Yes, her actions were brave and tragic that she lost her life.  But from an encyclopedia, she was just a one figure among several involved with the event. If she were to receive a honorarium due to her actions akin to the Medal of Honor, then there may be something more to talk about. But that's CRYSTAL that that's going to happen. --M ASEM  (t) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is it too soon a choice? Ahnoneemoos takes a reasoned, well thought out, and compelling stance on keeping the article and I commend this person for it, but can't we put some "distance" between the event and making declarations about what constitutes "historical significance"? The world is still reacting to the "raw shock" of the event and we're seemingly rushing to attribute status to someone who is famous for last moments of her life. Please don't my word for this, search for articles on victims of 911 and see what turns up.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! We actually have an essay on that very same subject; check out WP:TOOSOON. Fortunately, it's just an essay, not a policy. In Soto's case we do have a policy that cover her circumstances: WP:VICTIM. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect, fair enough.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect. For the moment.  Also, pending further developments including Medal of Freedom, for the moment house this article's content as appropriate compared to other heroes'/victims' mentions in the main Sandy Hook article.  As an aside, if every hero of Sandy Hook should get an article, then where is the article for the principal and the school psychologist who rushed the shooter and also paid with their lives? Shearonink (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per my post above, multiple independent reliable sources about Dawn Hochsprung:
 * Sandy Hook Principal: Mother, Educator, Leader, Hero (Huffington Post/Newtown Patch), Colleagues Remember Sandy Hook Principal (CBS News), Hundreds pay respects to Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung (Washington Post), Principal Dawn Hochsprung a ’5-foot-2-inch Raging Bull’ Lifesaver (ABC News), Dawn Hochsprung: Sandy Hook Elementary’s Heroic Principal (Daily Beast), Slain Connecticut principal remembered as energetic, positive, passionate (CNN).
 * Per my Comment elsewhere on this page, I see nothing wrong with possibly redirecting Soto to a 'Heroes' section of the main article which could then include all the adults who sacrificed themselves for those children. This is covered by multiple reliable sources: Hamill: Sandy Hook’s heroes give us hope for ’13 (NY Daily News), School psychologist died trying to protect others (USA Today story about Mary Sherlach). Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * redirect extremely noble and heroic person, but even though BLP1E does not apply to the deceased, this article will always be a pseudobiography, and does not need to be stand aloneGaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Although her actions are memorable, she doesn't meet GNG by herself. Also, we have this BLP1E issue... — ΛΧΣ  21  03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete. Classic WP:1E. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per everyone else.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Clear redirect case where the person is only notable for one event -- sadly in this case a tragedy -- but unless more emerges and she has a bigger effect such as Rachel Scott from the Columbine shooting where a movement was formed because of her writing. Mkdw talk 07:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect only notable for one event. Can be restored if she has a long term cutural impact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Twenty-eight students and teachers were "victims" at their school, but, unlike most of the others, Victoria became an "active participant" when she stood, confronted the killer and tried to give those under her care an extra chance, a fact that has merited ample coverage by independent media. In doing so, she became a role model.  Teachers are not required to die for their students, unlike soldiers who are expected to die for their fellow soldiers. Yet soldiers who go the extra mile are recognized with medals and special recognition in Wikipedia, while some would deny a teacher who stood to take a bullet for her kids similar recognition in Wikipedia, not as a prize but as a remarkable method to allow others to learn from her heroism.  I agree that the rules allow Victoria to be covered by a "stand-alone" article and Wikipedia will better serve its users for it. Pr4ever (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as a stand-alone article. Victoria Leigh Soto was not merely a "victim." She engaged in direct, meaningful action which cost her life and saved many others. As such, she is much closer to the textbook definition of hero or heroine, than mere victim. A teacher who takes a bullet for her students, and actually saves several of them, is a great deal more than just a victim. In addition, even if Victoria Leigh Soto were only a "victim" (which she is not), this article would stand on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. Victoria Leigh Soto, as per WP:VICTIM, played a large role in a historical event that was well-documented. In addition, as per WP:VICTIM, her role has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event.
 * Finally, we have clear precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. The Sanders and the Bishop articles, have both been in Wikipedia for over five years. To keep them and not Victoria Leigh Soto, would be a glaring double standard.
 * Nelsondenis248 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:About the Sanders article: It was not written until 2007, has no inline citations and has been tagged for improvement since 2009. About the Bishop article, it was not written until November 2007, several months after the sad events at VA Tech.  I see nothing wrong with possibly redirecting Soto to a 'Heroes' section of the main article. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012(UTC)
 * Thank you for your chronology. Since you're so intent on splitting hairs, in seven hours we will enter 2013, and both the Sanders and Bishop articles will technically be six, not five years old. These articles, and their long existance in Wikipedia, provide ample precedent for Victoria Leigh Soto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsondenis248 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 December 2012(UTC)
 * Comment: My point was that the articles were not written immediately following the events that precipitated them, that time passed before they went live into Wikipedia mainspace. Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can be reevaluated after a period of time, if it appears that this person really does not deserve an article. At this time she appears to. I am sympathetic to the BLP1E argument but I don't think it applies here. I also feel that the sourcing of the article itself can be improved. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be ample precedent for this article, and she received significant coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to main article on the shooting. Let me note that I expect this MAY change over the upcoming years/months.  The individual was non-notable before the event.  She was forced into action and showed wonderful leadership in the middle of a tragedy, but not sufficient enough to have a separate article.  In similar situations (i.e. Columbine), "leaders" were also not notabel enough for individual article until later when books, movies, TV movies, etc were written about them.  I would not be surprised if this happens in this case too - and at that point, she may indeed be notable enough for an individual article.  Otherwise, 1-event itself is not significant enough to provide the required level of notability.  Note: we in the press HAVE emphasized her actions: having a hero sells more newspapers, but that does not make her article-worthy yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic clearly meets WP:GNG. Arguments based on WP:BLP1E can be safely ignored.  If editors don't like the article, nobody's forcing them to work on it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E (which applies regardless of BLP status). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. In my opinion, this also fails WP:VICTIM which typically applies to coverage that centers around the victim (e.g. Matthew Shepard). Location (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum There is no deletion being discussed here, either of the edit history or of the redirect.  The correct place for the discussion is on the talk page of the article.  Note that a redirect-without-deleting-the-edit-history outcome from AfD is not binding on the community.  Likewise, a keep outcome does not prevent a later decision to redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many many AfD's result in redirect, and that redirect would be precedent for any other AfD that comes about when someone recreates an article over the redirect with the same content. Regardless, deletion is a valid option in this option so it's the right forum. gwickwire  talk edits 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your redirect assertion, I refer you to King of Hearts, who reopened this discussion. It seems that admins don't like to get involved in such disputes since they are content disputes, not deletion issues.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just flat-out wrong. --Conti|✉ 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement seems to be responding to my post. Please be more specific.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AfD's can end up with a decision other than "delete" or "keep", and "redirect" is one of them. And that is as binding to the community as any other AfD outcome. --Conti|✉ 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rational outside observers are likely to regard this as idiocy, with good reason. We don't need to go out of our way to embarass Wikipedia; that's done enough in the ordinary course of events here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. A voice of reason in this wilderness. I fully agree. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we have an article on the shooter, too? --Conti|✉ 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Only notable as a victim of a school shooting. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, she has gained prominence as a heroine of the shooting. If she was just a victim I would favor deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep People who are really significant in a major event acquire notability, because people write about them at length. WP:BIO1E explicates this dilemma fairly well. To quote, "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The shooting is a major event, not some 15 minutes' wonder on Twitter, and the individual in question has received extremely high levels of coverage. We've well passed the threshold. Ray  Talk 20:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E (recently deceased). She was clearly a wonderful and brave person, but no, sorry - Al is o n  ❤ 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If Dyalan Kyebold and Eric Harris have a wikipedia page for their notoriety in a school shooting, I think Victoria should have one too, for example Rachel Scott and other victims of Columbine have wikipedia pages - User:Cabelo545 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. To be fair and stay neutral, wouldn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also apply to "Redirect" comments above such as this one above "Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Everything needed can be covered there. We don't even have an article on the shooter... --Conti|✉ 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" ???
 * Sure, adding "we don't even have an article on the shooter" is OSE as well. However, the first part of that argument about the reason to redirect is appropriate. --M ASEM (t)
 * Comment. How reliable are these hero claims? The only living witnesses are 10-year-old children who were inside a cupboard and no doubt deeply traumatised by the incident. Yes, she probably did attempt to hide the children, but who can say that her actions were "heroic" rather than what any sensible adult would do in the situation? WWGB (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand our policies, what matters is that we reflect what is in reliable sources, such as this article in the NY Daily News today: . I understand your point, but I think that the large amount of publicity that she has received tips the balance in favor of an article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What determines notability is not a brief burst of coverage but enduring coverage. So yes, nearly every victim in the shooting had a burst of news coverage, but there's almost no enduring coverage of these persons any more outside their deaths within the shooting.  This is not rule out that a potential article on any victim including Soto may be possible in the future if, say, a memorial, a law given their name (ala the Amber Alerts), etc., but right now, that doesn't exist and it would be CRYSTAL to assume these will occur. --M ASEM  (t) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect unless there's long-term cultural impact from her actions within the larger event. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What if this comes out no consensus
It should default to redirect to my mind. (I did !vote for redirect.) Anyone who gets their name in the paper will get keep votes in a discussion like this. This is essentially an offshoot from a main article and requires consensus for creation, not the other way around. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus for creation is not required per WP:BEBOLD and WP:NOTPAPER. If this comes to no consensus it would mean that the people participating on this AfD could not reach a consensus on how to proceed with the article and, therefore, should be left as is since no particular action was preferred on this discussion to change its current status. You can, however, request an WP:DRV or nominate it for AfD once again a few months down the road. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2013 (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.