Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre timeline


 * 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. Easiest WP:SNOW ever. Everybody apart from nominator advocates keeping or merging (which are essentially the same outcome). kingboyk 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre timeline

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep I have just about had it with this disrespectful deletion discussion about a major noteworthy event, when there are tv shows (!) and episodes (!?!) that have their own article. This is only drawing so much attention BECAUSE it is a noteworthy event... in effect, proving its own notability. As for me, assuming there is no space limit to Wiki, we can have as much articles about both notable events and TV episodes as we like. I strongly suggest people leave the Virginia articles be. Romancer 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Virginia Tech Massacre was not a war, and it definitely effect no one on a major scale. To take it this much out of context compeltely undermines the meaning of out many other good articles. All this information can be found by looking at either the Cho page of the Virginia Tech massacre page, it definetly does not need a seperate timeline, this serves no purpose but to make the event look far more importatnt than it is. Unless of course you plan on making a timeline for every event that caused a group of people to die? Perhaps for every group of iraquirs killed during the "Oil War" or perhaps one for each group killed by a bomb? Of course this was sarcasm, they are notable for only a single page on the more major topic also. --Jimmi Hugh 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ...for at least a month The VT Massacre is a horrible event and one of the ways that a person may process it emotionally is to look at the details of how it unfolded in an effort to understand if anything could have been done differently. It gives a different perspective from a narrative.  Cherylyoung 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is relevant information, and it was moved from the main article Virginia Tech massacre because that article is getting pretty long. I see no compelling reason to delete it.  Of course WP does not have the same level of detail for each and every event of importance around the world, but that should actually be the goal.  Instead of deleting this information, we should be expanding other articles to match this level of detail. LinguistAtLarge 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually note my sarcasm comment. Of course we are not going to have timelines for every killing, they serve no importance. This timeline has no place anywhere... if the information it provides is not in the other articles then they need serious work anyway. --Jimmi Hugh 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant information into the main Virginia Tech Massacre article. This timeline is completely pointless. What are the grounds for inclusion into the timeline? I've said this before, there is no need for separate articles relating to this event. Put all the information into one article and the trim it down to what is essential. Most of the information in this timeline could be cut right away. Does it really matter when the shooter graduated high school? Probably not. I don't understand the need to sensationalize tragedies like this. 33 people died, let's mourn and move on. -- Cy ru s   An dir on  14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic information that branches from the main Virginia Tech Massacre article. That article is a bit on the long side. This is a natural bifurcation that should be linked from there. --Mhking 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Columbine High School massacre also contains a number of offshoot articles, which means that this one is likely to need them as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as stated above -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as already well put. Epson291 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main article. A succinct timeline would be useful, with important and referenced times and places, pereferably along with a map to show how the events unfolded. It does not need to be so overly detailed, verbose and filled with tons of original research as to require a separate article. Edison 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep...If only for the time being I would say that this should be kept for now since this is such a recent event and people are wanting a good source for a timeline of information. The CNN and FOXnews sites have some timelines, but they are hard to find, and a lot of people are coming to WP for information.  In the future, it could be remerged into the article or deleted as seen fit.  It's just that the Virginia Tech massacre article was getting MUCH too big, and something needed to be moved.  I would say give it a month or so, and reevaluate the necessity. Killintimeslowly 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a short term news site. It is a long term store of human knowledge. All the information in the timeline is provided perfectly well in the main articles... we do not do temporary pages here. --Jimmi Hugh 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether you consider it a "short term news site" or not is irrelevant: people are using it as such. This timeline is more detailed than the few paragraphs in the main article.  Yes, there are some people who would want JUST a more succinct run through of the events, but some would also like a more detailed day-by-day description of the event.  THUS it warrants its own page.  The purpose of this article was to keep the main one from becoming overwhelming.  WP has plenty of space to handle this small article.
 * Comment I am afraid wikipedia does not make room for "one offs" or do things because "everyone else is doing it". The whole point of this discussion is to ensure Wikipedia policy is followed. As a person completely unaffected by these events i can honestly say that this article and all related ones (except obviously the main event article) completely ignore Wikipedia Guidelines. Please try to argue your point with a policy that backs you up, and not because that is what everyone does with wikipedia. --Jimmi Hugh 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this massacre is unusual precisely because of the time element, i.e. the time elapsed between the two halves of the killings, the controversy over letting classes take place after the first murders, etc. Rhinoracer 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and I propose we short-circuit debate. There doesn't seem to be much point since the other side didn't show up. Ronnotel 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What are you on about? Given that all the information i nthe article is already in the other pages, the merge comments are identical to deletes. Infact i would have put this on the articles for merge page... but deleting it achieves the same and is neccesary anyway. So Both sides are here and in disagreement as always. --Jimmi Hugh 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Short-circuiting AfD discussions can only happen if opinion is quite unanimous. This is definitely not the case here. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:58Z 
 * Merge per above --Hillock65 15:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge the key points of the timeline of the actual incident - not all the leadup items that have been included here - into the Virginia Tech massacre article. This level of intense detail and background information on a single subject - regardless of how big a deal it is - is not suitable to a general knowledge encyclopedia.  At this rate of information spamming and hyperintimate detail we will practically have written an entire book on the subject rather than an encyclopedia article in no time.  And no we can't "short circuit" this discussion just yet, it's not even been listed an hour and already people are calling for a speedy close?  Give people a chance to express their opinions ...  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into main article. Gandalf61 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Article is sourced and relevant. Mystache 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Smerge Information is relevant, but I'm not sure if I want to make the main article even longer. Jauerback 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Relevant information about a significant event; per WP:SIZE, main article too large already for it to be merged back in. (And gee, how prod-happy people are these days: about the only Virginia Tech shootings related-article they haven't proposed for deletion is the main article.  It's probably just a matter of time.) --Yksin 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Think the opposite friend, for it is the main article we wish to focus upon. All information currently seperate from it must be in the main article for it to be complete anyway. To ignore the dates and times of basic events or forget a detail like the news report would make the main article incomplete. Therefore we propose a merger of information that is/should be in the main article. Sticking the time of a coupel of events in the main article will hardly bloat it, and if well written may not affect the size at all --Jimmi Hugh 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This timeline is informative and the main article is too long. --Neo-Jay 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:I would just like to mention that I tagged the article for a clean up, in responce to the article being a little on the long-scale in terms on a timeline, it really should be a thourough article on just the day of the shootingRodrigue 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - We already have an article on just the day of the shooting, see Virginia Tech massacre -- Jimmi Hugh 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  do not merge, very useful, plenty of precedent. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Given the worldwide notability of the event (I've heard it called the most significant US-based criminal incident since 9/11) such a timeline article is more than worthy enough. However I would support revisiting it in six months to a year when things have calmed down a bit and see if it can be merged somewhere. 23skidoo 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unfortunately wikipedia does not do things temporarily. Until you hear that the Virigina Tech Massacre timeline is the most significatnt timeline of all time i don't think it deserves a place anywhere. Nearly all the dates and times are in other articles and the ones taht are nto can easily be slotted in. --Jimmi Hugh 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't live in Virginia but I have found this timeline to be extremely useful in determining the failure of Virginia Tech's security. Considering that this is the bloodiest shooting in U.S. history, I think the timeline deserves an article here in Wikipedia.  Dionyseus 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Request Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. It's rather clear how this is going to end up. --Kizor 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a simple way of providing information, and is sourced and factual. I disagree with the implication on your nomination that the event isn't historically noteworthy to require multiple articles. This is too big to be merged nicely, and is an offshoot from the main Virginia Tech massacrearticle. -Halo 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, make that a Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. -Halo 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW is only an option only when the consensus is for keep. Opinions on both sides are just as correct and frequent in this case. Therefore we wait till an administrator looks it over. Clearly numerous people have said merge and the idea that is is speedy keep is crazy --Jimmi Hugh 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Good lord. -Phoenix 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into main article. Ward3001 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not a good nomination. Timelines are not exclusive to wars. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know, i was not insinuating they were. I was using a war as an example of the level of hype surrounding this entire topic. A timeline is unnesary when it only points out time from two articles. The point of a timeline would be to bring together far seperated events. In this case all these dates and time are (or should be) in the massacre and cho's articles. --Jimmi Hugh 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: An exclusive timeline article is good. Often thats what we want to know: what happened when? This article serves that purpose. Yes there's duplication of information but this is a timeline. Its ok to have duplication in this important event. People are not "trying" to make it look more important than it is. It is very important and for any important people want to have multiple ways of displaying information. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If that is how "people" want todo it they can on their own websites. I try to follow policy, and it dictates that this should be merged into the main article. --Jimmi Hugh 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy doesnt say everything should be merged. As you can see everyone said Keep. Someone please keep and take out this disruptive template and do a speedy keep. You've nominated a number of things that people have wanted to keep, some from this massacre event. The deletion templates make a page look bad if its a bad deletion nomination. Discuss a little on the talk page first before nominating further, thats my advice.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not use the term "everything". In this case merger is the correct course of action though. And refering to my other nominations, they are all of equal arguemnt for both sides so it was fair to put them up for deletion. This is definetly not a speedy keep as numerous people agree with both sides. --Jimmi Hugh 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read the first Keep comment. Wait for some time before nominating any other V. massacre related articles. People are reading all this stuff. They dont wanna see unnecesry deletion templates. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep very encyclopediac and informative--Sefringle 05:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

 * Keep The presentation is clear and well referenced, well beyond what I could expect if the content were selectively merged. I'd almost say speedy keep, but there are a few dissenters. YechielMan 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see why people are complaining so much. You rush to put a tag saying that the main article is too long, then when people take easily removed chunks and branch them off to satisfy you, you say they should be deleted. Make up your mind. Violask81976 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, given that this would not be displayed in full (it would be scattered) it would take up no extra room. Secondly, we do not allow conflicting policies to win over each other, we find away to adhere to both. --Jimmi Hugh 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Virginia Tech massacre has spawned a number of bad articles that are currently at AFD, and I have voted "delete" at several of them.  However, this is not one of bad or unnecessary articles.  A subarticle on the timeline of events is a logical way to shorten an excessively long article.  Most importantly, unlike the bad articles, this article focuses on what is notable, the massacre itself.--FreeKresge 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article is necessary to illustrate the incident in a clearer way. There is no reason for a deletion here and certainly not worth for discussion. Chris 05:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Noteworthy topic and well-referenced article. The timeline is an important supplement for clarification. +A.0u 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per FreeKresge. Carcharoth 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and maintain status quo for two weeks - these articles are all high visibility topics - we don't need article space cluttered with deletion templates right now - it's not the impression we want to give visitors about Wikipedia. --BigDT ( 416 ) 12:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia doesnt have a policy on this. I could disrupt Google by putting in a deletion template and then we'd have to wait 5 days before that thing is gone from the top of the page. Unnecessary bad nominations should be done away with ASAP. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:26, 20 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.