Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed

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 delete. This has been quite the parade of socks and spas. It goes without saying that "its interesting", "I like it" and "its true" are not good reasons to keep content. The fundamental concerns of those arguing for deletion have not been met. Innacurate media reports are common to news that emerges shortly after major incidents. Discussion of such reports relating to the massacre (and in particular those of Michael Sneed) has not taken place in multiple reliable sources such that an article can be based around them. Those who are not just passing through that advocate keeping do so mainly on a "wait and see basis" but one can just as easily wait until a topic has become notable before covering it- indeed that is our standard practice. There are also valid

WP:BLP
concerns about an article which, even with a substantial rewrite, still emphasises the error of one person who is not otherwise notable.

The tenor of this debate is fundamentally in favour of deletion. The matter would appear from the discussion to deserve a brief mention at

Virginia Tech massacre if anything. WjBscribe 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre

Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is not a bio of columnist Michael Sneed, but is being used as a forum for constant revert wars regarding her coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; Delete --Mhking 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Keep comments, no matter how "rubbish" they are as you feel, exactly reflect people's strong opinions toward the article and its subject, which in turn prove this article's notability. Even your own STRONG opinion in favor of deleting this article also shows it can stir up different views, and thus, the article is notable and worth being kept here.Dongdongdog 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that is just bull.. on that basis, we could never delete an article from wikipedia, because if even one was argued it would be classes as notable... get a back bone! --Jimmi Hugh 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It becomes very tiring to show those who refuse to see the obvious: an news event happened, spreads in major news networks on prime time over and over again, the Foreign Ministry of one certain country decided that this is notable enough to issue a statement. And however it is still not "notable". Besides, shouting and calling people names does not strengthen your arguements Ww2007april 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never in my life shouted or called people names. There is no need for such vulgar behaviour. And to put things in perspecitive, a huge number of people see my way, a huge number see your way. And we all feel that it is tiring trying to convince the opposite of what we think is right. We may never succeed. But i will continue to try and make you see my way as logn as can in order to enlighten you, as i am sure you will try to enlighten me. Notability on wikipedia is not based on statements issued by goverments... once again wikipedia would be bloated if this were so. The Notability we are arguing here is whether or not this is notable enough to warrant an entire article. Given that policy dictates people do something notable, this article fails. It also only makes one point which could easily be intergrated into the main article on the massacre. --Jimmi Hugh 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, from what I am seeing here, the original "totally not notable" has evolved into "not notable enough". Let put this aside for now, for it will take time for one to travel from one extreme into some sort of middle ground. And talking about calling names, the "Bull" and the "..." right after that does not look like a good word to me, or you may argue the innocence of a certain kind of animal, but come on, we are all adults here.Ww2007april 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm there is a slight difference between defining a comment as bull and name calling... but never mind. I aplogize if you got the impression i thought that Michael Sneed should be purged from wikipedia... quite the opposite i am sure she could fill her own section on the main topic... this is where i have always tried to stand on the subject. I just definetly don' think we follow policy by giving her a whole topic. --Jimmi Hugh 06:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, I assume you also stand by your "rubbish" comment as well? Ww2007april 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course... all keep articles at the time i made the comment were in my opinion "rubbish" and not worthy of response. Luckily the conversation has stirred up a bit... despite no one giving a reason why an article about a woman who still appaears to only have this one area of notability should be kept --Jimmi Hugh 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well then. Now could my esteemed friend Jimmi do me this one courtesy by letting me know: are you still standing by your "rubbish" statement as we speak right now? Ww2007april 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No... that would be like America standing by its comment that it wishes to split from england and become a nation in it's own right. Oh yes, it already did that, times have changed. Obviously our opinions differ, but i think it is obvious people are attepting to make arguments as to why this article is notable. Of course you are failing to make any comment that does not simply warrant this article for a merge into the main event. --Jimmi Hugh 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am very pleased to see all descriptive bulls plus their trailing dots and "rubbish" being tossed away (assumed this one mission accomplished?), and people simmered down. This is practically the only way people can talk to each other -- which means one speaking, one listening, and vise versa. A clear, and two way conversation is very hard to achieve, even in this age of net. The difficulty of maintaining a somewhat noise free channel is almost essential for people to understand each other -- and this is one reason that I am holding news events and whatever happened about far reaching media "notable". A person can efficiently maintain his or her acquantance circle up to no more than 200 personally, for the rest of his or her information need, he has rely on the good faith of the mass media, and when the media fails, it is "notable".Ww2007april 06:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My suggestion is merging it with "Michael Sneed Rumor" article, which was created with a more proper name, and link it to Virginia Tech Mass Shooting article. The article records how the false media reporting was generated and spread and the huge influence it had on innocent people. It also makes a good subject for future sociological study. --Tinbbs 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Tinbbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I agree, merge them both, then delete them in one... will be half as less hastle for the admins, good thinking! --Jimmi Hugh 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article describes a news report event in the Virginia Tech Massacre media coverage. The report was very widely referenced on-line and off-line both in the US and overseas, and also caused some controversy. It played a very important role in the first few hours on the massacre's news coverage about finding the correct killer. This wikipedia article covers the origin and development of this controversial report as well as people's response to it. It lists all the sources accurately and completely. So it deserves to be saved in wikipedia for record-keeping's sake.Dongdongdog 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Dongdongdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And why shouldn't it just be a passing note in the main article? You seem to forget we are arguing this one article, not the whole damn massacre! --Jimmi Hugh 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe event is significant enough to warrant a place in Wikipedia. The massacre is terrible. But it doesn't mean anything related to it but less significant should be overshadowed by it. Put an article here doesn't affect the main entry on the massacre. It only gives people more opportunities to fully grasp this tragedy. It's part of the important history.
  • With all the details, this article is too long to be put in the main article. People need to look at the big picture. This tragic event does not include the mass shooting itself only but also the responses of the society, including general public, news media, and authorities, and the influence they have on the people and the society. This article focuses on one aspect of the event and definitely deserves a separate entry. --Tinbbs 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is not a bio of columnist Michael Sneed, but is being used as a forum for constant revert wars regarding her coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; --Mhking 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeI agree this article should be merged into Michael Sneed Rumor
  • Keep,this is the truth, nothing but the truth, it deserves a place here.--Albertwang 04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Albertwang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep,this article deserves its place.Her report was the first journalistic widely spread in the world.--Ksyrie 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; What is the reason for deletion here? I'm not saying it should be kept, but I'm not sure what the nominator's reason is. Masaruemoto 02:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's because this doesn't have enough information about Michael Sneed, then either that should be added, or the article name changed to better reflect the content. (if either he, or the story, deserve an article). Masaruemoto 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough to deserve his own article. └Jared┘┌talk┐  02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, Michael Sneed is a woman. Zagalejo 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shows how much Jared has followed this issue. No wonder he/she claimed that it is not notable:-)--Zhangwl03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had it been a more prominent issue, and she been a more prominent figure, I would have known :) Seriously, though, that has nothing to do with anything though. └Jared┘┌talk┐  03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering how wiki admins judge if it is notable enough. Like I pointed out in the discussion page of "Michael Sneed", it is a big issue for certain groups of people while being irrelevant to others. --Tinbbs 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is based on unbiased notability. For example a Christian admin would think Jewish points of view were notable. But no one in there right mind would think something some kids made up in the playground was notable, or that one news paper article that changed nothing in the world warranted notability --Jimmi Hugh 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we had an article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions later proven false, the servers would crash. Every notable incident has its rumours started by journalists - every one. Just because this is recent doesn't mean that this incredibly, incredibly minor rumour or its originator is notable. --Charlene 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please nominate a similar event not recorded in wikipedia. Thanks. Zhangwl03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the reason for this article is not because the false report but it's global impact and notability, especially in Chinese communities. Therefore, keeping it does not mean we need "article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions". Sweeper77 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It had no impact... the murders had an impact, and this article was a single factor within that. Therefore this deserves nothing more than a passing comment in the main article. If you bring attention to it then you should bring attention to all journlalists who publish unsupported claims. --Jimmi Hugh 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This article and Michael Sneed's rumor contain the similar content. It describes a historical event rather than a bio, so suggest to merge this one into that one. Also the title might need to be changed to conform to wiki rules. Zhangwl03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a prominent columnist in the Chicago Sun-Times (circulation 368,062), I'd say Michael Sneed would have warranted an article without the recent hubbub. However, it might be best to start with a fresh slate. Zagalejo 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article deserves its place in this free encyclopedia. Even if we have an article for every bad journalist, so what - if the servers cannot handle the traffic, wikipedia should not be in this business and does not deserve a place on the internet. The news business is a serious business, and people deserve to know who's creating false news just to gain publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duming153 (talk • contribs) — Duming153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. If this event is not notable, I don't know what notable is. The false claim by this journalist has been cited all around the world and by all the networks, and it happened with the VT massacre. It definitely deserves its place in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeww (talk • contribs) — Georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • ...The article
    Virginia Tech massacre serves this purpose nicely. I am not contesting the idea of the rumor, but I am just saying that its notability comes exclusively from its connections with the massacre. Thus, it should not get its own page, but be merged back into VA Tech mass. └Jared┘┌talk┐  03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. This article reflects a serious incident related to the recent VT tragedy, and the columnist and her product by itself receives the global attention and even the Chinese government had to react to it. This is certainly notable enough. This article could be gradually expand to be a bio of this columnist, considering she is globally well-known now, even so the current content in the article should also be an important part of the bio since it is this incident that made her so famous for the first time.--atou 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article contains factual content relevant to Virginia Tech Massacre. It's notable enough because almost all Chinese media has cited the report in their headlines and it has caused great concerns in both mainland China and the overseas Chinese communities. However, the format of the article should be revised to comply with a biograhical entry or it should be moved under different category with different title.Sweeper77 03:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Sweeper77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation with an article about Sneed's entire biography, not this one incident. All this incident amounted to was "a newspaper columnist printed something that later turned out to be incorrect" -- something that happens every day. Her comment was not even libelous since she didn't identify the person she had in mind. --Metropolitan90 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, it's not about "a newspaper columnist printed something that later turned out to be incorrect", it's about the false report's impact. Second, if it's not a biography then revised it to a biography, why delete it? Sweeper77 03:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The false report had no "impact". No one will remember it in 20 years, because it means nothing. I personally think even the massacre itself should have had a passing comment, but given peoples need to over emphasize we have to put our foot down somewhere. What next? Are we going to have two pages dedicated to the kid who had a bad feeling about going to school that day? --Jimmi Hugh 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't remember does not mean others don't. As mentioned in the article, the report went quickly into mainstream Chinese media and for an entire day (it was daytime in China) everyone was talking about how a F1 student had killed 32 Americans. And later the Chinese government had to step out to clarify the false report. You think nobody will remember it? Maybe you don't care because you are not a Chinese, but since when wiki becomes a US-based project? Sweeper77 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you please clarify? Are you trying to insinuate i am taling about the massacre? Please notice we are not discussign the deletion of that page. --Jimmi Hugh 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In 20 years, I bet no one will remember half of the wikipedia.--atou 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Allow me to rephrease. In 20 years no one will remember this as more than a single fact in a sometimes remembered event. --Jimmi Hugh 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Allow me to rephrase. Do you think the stem cell scandal should be included in wiki?Hwang_Woo-suk These two case are similar to each other. A jounalist cooked up a story and made its way to national/global media and a scientist faked his result and reported to Science. If you think this case is not worth it, please recommend the deletion of the other article as well. No double standard please. Oldmonster 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I aplogize but i do not know that particular event. But given your wording i advise you read the breakfast discussion near the end of this discussion. If you are implying this stem cell incident was an event in its own right then of course it deservesa n article. This disucssion is about an article that only caused concern because of the bigger picture, and should therefore be merged. --Jimmi Hugh 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. The article has been completely revised since my earlier recommendation so my objections no longer stand. --Metropolitan90 01:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non notable. I would also like to say i am disapointed that all the keep arguments are nonsensical rubbish. --Jimmi Hugh 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really suspect you have an conficted interest here. You started using personal attack in discussion. What point you want to make? Only your point is not "rubbish"? Come on, you may wear the Emperor's new clothes. Oldmonster 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from verbal attack. Being notable or not is not determined by your judgment. If a large group of people have a strong feeling toward something, it is notable and worth being as an entry in Wikipedia.Dongdongdog 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not a verbal attack. Simply an obvious note to help the admin who looks it over realise peoples keep comments have nothing todo with the situation and are not in the aid of wikipedia. It is as if the whole group believes they have to proof their morality by forcing us to keep this waste of space article knowing that they care not for people. --Jimmi Hugh 05:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend:
    • (a)merge properly sourced info concerning her reporting and the reactions to it into appropriate sections of the main
      POV/Content fork
      or even personal attack. Particularly so in the absence of any other view or information. Not all of the current material needs to be integrated into the main VT shootings article, only enough to document the sequence of events and the main reactions to the initial identification of the suspect.
    • (b)delete the separate fork, Michael Sneed's rumor, per reasons given in (a).
    • (c)weak keep for the Michael Sneed biog article itself, if the subject's claim to notability in her own right can be established, and only if it is made into a more balanced biographical entry covering more than just this one event. The material on her report definitely needs to be pared down significantly, and accompanied by other details of career etc. I've not looked very intensively but I'm presently unable to locate any other specific biographical or career history data sources; if such cannot readily be found then that would indicate to me that an article on Ms. Sneed may not be warranted in any case.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Most of the sources here are just news articles based on Sneed's report, not about the effects of Sneed's report. The only article about the effects of Sneed's report is from James Fallows, but one journalist's comment is not enough to base an article upon. This article seems to exist as "retribution" for Sneed's report, the earlier 2 unsigned "keep" comments seem to confirm that, along with statements like Her story was widely discussed and deemed irresponsible in many overseas Chinese forums. The fact that
    Michael Sneed and Michael Sneed's rumor are nearly identical is also suspect. And what exactly is the effect of this incorrect story? Chinese people felt a little uncomfortable for a few hours ? Reality check: 32 people are dead - let's not use Wikipedia to make this Sneed issue bigger than it really is. Masaruemoto 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. This incident shows the unethical nature and lack of integraty of Ms. Sneed. As a reporter, the most important thing is to report facts, not making up stories. Once the reports turned out false, instead of giving an explanation and apologize, she erased all the traces and pretend nothing happened. We don't need this kind of character in the news business and the public deserves to know what kind of person and reporter she is. Burgen 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)burgen 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Burgen 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Burgen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a place to make lists of dodgy reporters, if we did we would make comments on all reporters. Please learn what wikipedia is about before making comments on what should stay on wikipedia. She is just like all other reporters and you do more damage by trying to make a big deal out of it. --Jimmi Hugh 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue here is not about damaging someone or a "retribution", as Masaruemoto suggested above. It is about recording an incident that generated global effects, cited by innumerable news agencies and newspapers around the world, on the first day of this week. I do not know why this deserves a deletion. If you would like to see a balanced bio, you can certainly make it one. If you want to make it look like an article about an event, you can also work on it or merge it with the aforementioned "rumor" page. Although this does look like imbalanced now, I don't think we have to delete every imperfect or not balanced article on this wiki. We should work on it to make it better, or add a tag to point it out.--atou 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its deletion has nothing todo with balance and perfection. THe article could be a featured one and it would still be deleted. What matters he is that the article is non-notable. It is a single fact from a larger case. Please try to argue within the scope of the article and not the major related event, it is for that very reason taht this should be put in the main event article. --Jimmi Hugh 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are making the distinction very subtle and difficult. How can we determine the notability of an event, if this event does look notable, but it is related to a bigger event? True, "a reporter making false report" is not a big deal, but I would argue that "33 people got killed" is not a big deal either if that happened in Iraq today and triggered by another bomb, at least nobody will care to write a wikipage on that. I would suggest the notability of an event should solely be decided upon its echo in the world and its media coverage. And this one, "the suspect is a Chinese" does receive substantial amount and thus is very notable.--atou 04:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can not find any suitable item from the official reasons for deletion list, can you??? I think Masaruemoto, and those who said this page was just a retaliation -- all of you should ask why this journalist and this newspaper rushed like that to be the first reporter of the identity of the shooter even though it was clear in their mind that what they were gonna report had not been confirmed? Indeed, compared with the 32+1 lives lost, this short-lasting rumor does not seem to be that tragic. But, we are not spending all our time mourning, are we??? What is more significant for us is to figure out an effective way to prevent all the bad things from happening again-- this certainly includes falsified news reports and possible retaliations on Asian people, in addition to cruel mass shootings. Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.145.124 (talk)
    • I aplogise but i could not make out most of your nonsensical argument. Like all others you seem to think the deletion policy cares about whether or not the paper should have posted this issue. The content does not really matter, what matters is that as a single article the is non-notable. -Jimmi Hugh 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may be perfectly frank and honest, no, I actually disagree with you, and I think with good reason: with apologies to the United States Postal Service and its employees for the usage of the term, Wikipedia is not here to figure out how to keep people from "going postal". We are an encyclopedia, not a psychoanalytical think tank or a research group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; with the renaming and redirection of the article, some of my initial misgivings have been alleviated. However, I still see the article as a violation of
    WP:POV
    . This is only serving to allow "injured" individuals to vent their anger at Sneed and the Chicago Sun-Times early reporting of the alleged identity of the gunman. I'll preface the remainder of my comments by saying that I am a journalist -- I am a news producer for a television station in Atlanta. In a breaking news situation, it is not unusual for multiple erroneous reports are made. Sources provide leads that do not pan out, investigative directions turn out to be dead ends, sources or interview subjects provide false leads or outright lies. Many news organizations, in an effort to be "first" may run those dead end stories.
Because of the instant-information news environment we live in today, thanks to news on the web and 24 hour (or at least 18 hour) a day live television news, those errors are more apparent than otherwise. I, and every other journalist out there, is likely equally guilty at some point in the past, especially in a breaking news situation. In those cases, the stories are refiled, changed, and the more correct information adopted as it is made available. As opposed to the Quixotic crusading against Sneed and her paper, I would suggest a more jaundiced eye be turned in that direction. This is but a simple mistake in the annals of journalism. It is not, as some here would have everyone believe, the discovery of a Watergate-sized cover-up of monumental proportions.
Most of us, as journalists, have gone through similar misreportings in the past. We have, in turn, corrected those mistakes and moved on. This is not, as many here would have you believe, the deliberate smearing or stereotyping of a person or people or group of people. The emotional outrage over this is far more than it should be. And it is certainly not a measure of tossing out the Wikipedia rules to assuage the supposed hurt feelings of the Chinese people. As I mentioned last night, there are plenty of places on the internet for the discussion and exposition of the supposed wrongs of journalists' activities in this affair. Wikipedia is not the place for that. And if you cannot see that, I would strongly suggest a reexamination of Wikipedia's goal and purpose. All of this forces me to reaffirm my support for the deletion of this article. --Mhking 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I think there is something wrong in your logic. First, how can you justify other's mistake by your own mistake? Second, if errors of journalists are allowable as long as there are covered up later, why do we need the journalists? You can just sit at home and make up all kinds of guessing and put that in the media. One of the apparent mistakes in Sneed's report is that she used a confirmative tone, instead of adding words like "perhaps", "maybe", which misled the public.
      • To Mhking Keep Now we knew what's the real reason from you, not these excuses you claimed before. Should I say you have no credibility? What you think about Don Imus? You probably thought he should not get fired as well. georgeww 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is your second unrelated reference to Don Imus... please don't question our knowledge if you know only this one fact. Mhking continues to have credibility... and he speaks the truth in thae fact that all journalists make mistakes and sometimes print false claims. The fact of the matter is we are not here to discuss the morality or our opinion on whether they should have to say sorry or if it was wrong. We are here only to decide whether this small event deserves it's own article on wikipedia. --Jimmi Hugh 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a hopelessly POV essay about one of the many inaccuracies in the initial coverage of a major news event, and is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia itself named an innocent person as the shooter in the main article until all traces of the name were removed from the article and the talk page by a high level admin with "oversight" authority; should we have an article about that? Or an article about how the press stories said that the shooter had been looking for his girlfriend at Norris? Or the refuted claim that Emily Hirsch had been his girlfriend? Or the false report that two shooters were in custody? Or the false report that the shooter of the first two people had left the university campus? Or an article about the false report that after the shootings at Norris only one person was dead? 90% of initial reports in a major event are just plain wrong. Anyone so curious about the evolution of a story can look at the edit history and talk page of the main article. Edison 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be accurate is one of basic professional requirements for journalists. How can you justify other's mistake by your own mistakes?
  • MOVE to
    Michael Sneed, this is notable to him, or the paper. Epson291 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. There were plenty of inaccurate reports and speculation when the tragedy first occurred. At best, this merits one or two sentences at
    talk/review) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep; the rumor was widely reported and notable. It has much higher impact than say
    Seigenthaler controversy. On the day of the shooting, the public was anxious to know the gunner's identity and Michael Sneed/Chicago Sun-Times apparently rushed to release the "exclusive" information without proper verification. This constitutes a serious violation of journalism standards. This rumour incident is now the subject of multiple sources such as [1], indicating its significance. --Vsion 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep; Why delete? Can't we tell the truth? —
    few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Keep I love seeing useless articles deleted, but IMO, this should definitely stay. Jauerback 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After rereading this article, and other comments, I've changed my mind. This is too focused on one incident of a much bigger event. This doesn't deserve it's own article. Jauerback 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have every reason to keep this post, because it's a fact. We don't need to talk about the behavior of Mrs. Sneed, however, this post can be a learning material for the future journalist/editors.

Arbitrary section break 1

But the truth of the matter is: one shall not duck from reality. And to faithfully keep a factual record of what had happened as a significant news event, is the very lesat we should do. --Ww2007april 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article is a POV fork of the media response in the main article, placing undue weight on one event in the massacre. UnfriendlyFire 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are always inaccurate media reports in the aftermath of a major news story. Why is this one so special? After Columbine, some journalists said there was a third or fourth gunman. After 9/11, there were false reports that Camp David was hit and that bombs had been planted in buildings near the WTC site. Whatever its title, this article amounts to soapboxing on an argument that boils down to "those evil journalists are a bunch of liars". Journalists make mistakes. All people make mistakes. To those who !vote "keep", ask yourself: Will we still be talking about this a year from now? Eight years after Columbine, are we still bemoaning those evil journalists who reported there was a third or fourth attacker? szyslak (t, c) 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect it's worth mentioning that there were a few innacuracies, but only very briefly in the main article; most of the info should not be merged in but istead deleted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge - There is absolutely no reason that this should be an article. Completely fails notablility guidelines. PaddyM 00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn recentism. Already covered sufficiently in the main VT incident article. Rockpocket 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is ridiculous, and almost offensive, that people are more concerned over a journalistic slip-up, the threat of an anti-Asian pogrom (five days and counting...) and identity politics than the massacre itself. By all means include it in the main article and on Sheed's own article, but this slip-up isn't newsworthy. Kransky 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge. This a is topic inseparable from the
    Virginia Tech massacre, so the fact that it has been separated out anyway strains my Wikicredulity. There seems to be a significant tendency amongst some Wikipedians to want to fragment stories when they don't think their "angles" are being satisfactorily covered in the main article, rather than bothering to gain a change the editorial consensus on the main article's talk page. I think that is what we're seeing here. --Dynaflow 06:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relocate - most of this material would fit well in articles on
    Michael Sneed. What doesn't fit in either of these is trivial and can be removed entirely. Rklawton 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge Here is the problem. Someone got me a copy of the World Journal from that day. It apparently received improper info referencing from Chicagotimes and then printed on the frontpage. The newspaper was then circulated to MILLIONS. Wikipedia is at least 1 place to set the facts straight. Benjwong 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a beacon of truth, nor is it a newspaper, chronicle, or blog. It's an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre, not enyclopedic and not of long-term interest. --kingboyk 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recentism. Worth no more than a footnote in the
    Virginia Tech massacre article. Skarioffszky 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete or Merge per above. ugen64 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well sourced and on that basis it may require its own article because of the detail of the information. I could see a merger drastically reducing the detail and quality of the content. It is well sourced information and should remain.
    de haha 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - not notable enough to have own artile. --Tom 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable topic. Wikipedia is not an indisctriminate collection of everytihing. `'mikka 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia allows recording of all kinds of pop songs, TV series, moveis in US, no matter how trashy they are. And now you guys call an incident which impacted more than 1 billion of people as "nonnotable". I can't find another better example of hypocrisy. Come on, what are you afraid of?

  • Delete Keep - This List of inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre includes a clear list membership criteria per
    WP:BLP problematic. -- Jreferee 00:07, 25 April 2007 (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/Michael_Sneed&oldid=1140103965"