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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

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

Subject is a faux-sujet. The subject is not notable in itself, but a manifestation of the Virginia Tech massacre. The plethora of links and references in the VTM article would probably be sufficient indication of the width and breadth of media coverage around the world, without the need for this potential POV fork. Of course one would expect some regular shows and potentially insensitive programming to be bumped, but this is but a factor of the massacre itself. Ohconfucius 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is just a poorly sourced summary of media which has covered the VTM, and doesn't provide any cogent rationale for why this is a notable topic in the first place. It's prima facie clear that the VTM is notable - notso for the media coverage thereof. --Haemo
• Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 06:51Z
• Delete. Spongy, particularly effects on entertainment shows. Not everything on TV is notable. This is the sort of thing you get when you write history while it's still hot. That's not necessarily a bad thing; after all, judgements can always be revised. It does generate material that has to be pruned though, and this is an example. BTLizard 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enough already! Nobody cares about the media coverage; in the grand scheme, we only care about the event. Haven't we killed this horse already? YechielMan 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Blaster Cannon Yet another branch on the Virginia Tech Massacre tree that is almost becoming uncontrollably large. Less is better in this case. Refine current articles, make them better, stop making new articles, rinse and repeat. --Cyrus Andiron 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The media coverage makes the massacre notable, not itself. I strongly concur with the above sentiment that the web of articles touching on the massacre is becoming overly large and unweildy - there's clearly a lot of editorial interest and effort in the subject but it should be focused on existing articles before rushing off to make yet another derivative article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. POV fork. Edison 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Epson291 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary.-- danntm ^T _C 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as necessary . 132.205.44.134 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Author's response. My reaction is shock and disbelief. I saw similar pages about media coverage and pop culture reaction to the 9/11 attacks and the London train attacks (sorry, I don't remember the page titles). I just thought that the massacre deserved a similar entry. I have not seen any good suggestions as to what to do with such an article. I also don't know where to turn to if this page, and all content on it, is deleted. I have a personal web page, but moving the contents of this page to my personal page is beyond the scope of the site (it's a fan fiction site). For this reason, I am asking for at least a merger onto the main page, so that the media coverage of this event is documented somewhere on Wikipedia. - Desmond Hobson 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It is too early to write this off and the reason for many deletes is the subject matter is too early for many to have noticed. Even today CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) ran a lengthy critique about US media coverage especially the manic reruns of Cho's video manifesto versus the decision by CBC not to run it at all. The author of this article should not despair, there is time to write about it as more people react to the mad rush of the 24 hour US channels to take cheap advanatage of the massacre. This will become a notable event if not already a notable event. I am sure number of books will be written about this subject matter no matter how much people want bury their heads in the sand about it Taprobanus 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The decision of NBC News to run Cho's video has attracted coverage in itself. Needs a cleanup but it is a legitimate article with available sources. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seriously needs beefing up with citations but I believe that most of the assertions can be properly sourced. That there are many other articles about the event is no reason to delete an article about a distinct and significant aspect of it. To the calls to improve those other articles, I respond that having a specific place to put information about the coverage will help improve those articles. JamesMLane t c 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:JamesMLane. Kolindigo 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with main VT massacre article and redirect. Ill-timed deletioncruft... Ranma9617 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the controversy regarding the running of the videos made it a notable incident in media history. Calwatch 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only notable part, the media package, is already covered and referenced in Seung-Hui Cho#Media package sent to NBC News. The other information is unnotable. Phony Saint 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. Subject is good, but this small amount of references (please, use <ref> tag and ((cite web)) template)... Hołek ҉ 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Holek. We have other articles discussing the media coverage of a highly publicized event so this article has precedent. However, it needs expansion of content and of sourcing which time could provide. Lets let this article develop. ↔NMajdan•talk 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the creator of the article mentioned similar "spin-off" articles for 9/11 and the London bombings. An example is List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks. At some point, spinning off more and more articles gets silly. Have a look at Template:Sep11, Template:2005 London bombings and Template:2004 tsunami for more examples of spin-off articles. My view is that such spin-offs can sometimes work, but they need a lot of work to succeed. Carcharoth 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom and above. --TREYWiki 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. He is quite right in his analysis. Eusebeus 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The parent article has grown long enough and this subject is large enough to warrant a child article. StuffOfInterest 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, needs to incorporate stuff from the since-deleted Michael Sneed/inaccurate reporting article, the Wayne Chiang stuff, etc. Wl219 13:14, 29 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.