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[edit]

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]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Comment for those inclined to !vote - Please give the article at WP:AADD a read before casting your !vote here. In particular, also look at WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you think it's interesting or you like it is not going to be considered when the closure of this discussion happens. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThe inaccurate media reports are already documented in the Virginia Tech Massacre article; this does not need its own article.
• Keep and Change the title to Michael Sneed Incident. The news event has achieved a status -- major media outlet coverage in one critical day of one major event, and the offical response from a major country's Foreign Minstry also adds to its notability. People are concerned about quality of news coverage and professionalism of journalistic practice, especially those with notable practical impact. Ww2007april 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) — Ww2007april (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • To state that the event being not "notable" certainly contradicts the fact the global impact it had achieved. I find it hard to understand people still using not notable to argue for erasing this article completely. And Jimmi's charged description of all keep votes as rubbish is even harder to comprehend. Ww2007april 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (indented, due to second !vote) Rockpocket 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well though i still stand by the comment, in my defence, at the time, nearly all the keep comments said things along the lines off "She is a bad reporter and people need to know this". Of course even with the number of comments now claiming that this article is notable, i have to disagree. The event as a whole caused the problem, and i am sure some reporter claiming what she did would have upset no one if he hadnt murdered a load of people. Events have numerous factors, let us mention the small ones like this in the main article and not bloat wikipedia with nonsense. It is not one comment per article on wikipedia! --Jimmi Hugh 05:44, 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]
      • what you think about Don Imus's joke? Frankly, you have no sense about history at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeww (talk • contribs) — Georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • That's a non-sequitur. Don Imus has nothing to do with this argument. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh thankgod, i thought i was losing it, i couldn't work out what his comments had todo with this either --Jimmi Hugh 05:22, 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 Virginia Tech massacre article itself, where it has relevance and can be given in the proper context. While it is valid to canvass media coverage and associated topics at the main article, having this specific incident documented separately like this -in either Ms. Sneed's biog (if kept) or some other separate article devoted to it- has the appearance, and not only the appearance, of consituting a 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 There is no requirement in Wikipedia that an article on a news report should be about the "effect" of the report, otherwise, it's not worth being here. Dongdongdog 06:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; Tell that to all the sockpuppets, I mean people, who want to keep this article because they say it is about the "effect" of the news report. And if this article isn't about the effect, but the actual news report itself, then it shouldn't be here either. This is an encyclopedia, not a news archive. Wikinews is for news. Masaruemoto 05:30, 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]

• Keep. Here is one link showing the adverse effects the falsified report from Michael Sneed: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818566/posts?q=1&;page=56#56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapt (talk • contribs) — Aapt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Holy freaking jesus.. i pray an administrator would delete this before i die... get this through your minds people... the only thing we are discussing is whether this article as a single topic is notable... no it is not, clearly it is nothing more than a sidenote in the main topic of the massacre. --Jimmi Hugh 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus has nothing to do with this. Sneed has.
  • I apologize to Jimmy for not having made it clearer so that everyone even including you can understand. Here's my thought regarding the notability of this issue (sorry if it is still "nonsensical" to you): if this issue were not notable, Ms. Sneed and the Sun-times would not have done it.
    • Of course you have opened my eyes... well of i go to make an article about my breakfast. Because of course, if it was not notable, then i probably wouldn't have had breakfast this morning. --Jimmi Hugh 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • go ahead with your breakfast. I would like to read it.
        • Thankyou for this... at least now the admin who reads this will know to ignore your comments given you actually believe an article about my beeakfast is good use of wikipedia bandwidth and storage. --Jimmi Hugh 05:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • yeah, i would like to see you breakfast report being quoted by Foxnews and international media-- en, probably you would be an American Idol by then. Good luck
        • Please don't insult me with ideas of becoming an idol of that country... no thankyou. Also read my above comment it relates to you also, obviously your comments are meaningless to the conversation given you really don't care about the cleaning up of wikipedia. --Jimmi Hugh 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the jokes. I would say that if Jimmi eats his breakfast, then its not notable enough. However if he reported on Chicago Sun-Times that he eats a Chinese (or got eaten by a Chinese), and made the 1.3 billion Chinese so unnerved, and is cited by every newspaper in every language tomorrow, then it is definitely notable, and I will write a wikipage about it. I promise.--atou 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh once again you miss the point. You see it would not unnerve the chinese unless there was a larger related topic. In that case the mention of my breakfast would appear on the larger topic, not on its own page. --Jimmi Hugh 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For what it's worth, I think the ardent keep !votes we're seeing are more in light of the shooting on Monday, and a side effect of emotions running a little high. Can we please, please try and remember that, despite how horrible this was, we need to be objective here? Yes, it's horrible that 32 college students got killed because one went off the deep end, but we can't ignore all rules just because of that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to either the incident itself or to the Chicago Sun-Times article - but I'm leaning towards inclusion for the Times. Yes, the reporter was a schmuck for doing this, but schmuckery doesn't necessarily make somebody notable - just makes 'em a schmuck. It's worth noting, but not by itself in a named article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of changes pointed out by User:Uncle G, I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep and Clean up. I question the notability of the subject per se, but it appears to be something that, given time, will fork out into its own anyhow - so we can safely stubify it for now and revisit it at a later time, I think. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote Changed. I changed it to delete, but gave my commentary under the first section break. Uncle G does raise a good point, but Yechiel does raise one that, in the end, trumps that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected my attribution link for the paper in question. Time to go to bed. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with Title Changed. I suggest to change to the title to "Michael Sneed Incident"
• Keep All these debates and replies show us how important and interesting this article is. And this is exactly why Wiki and all new medias will win the viewers over the traditional medias. --Jim
  • I think an article on goggiliwoggilydoodar would be interesting and so do a hundred+ people i know... that does not mean it deserves a place on wikipedia. Please read policy before posting people. --Jimmi Hugh 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with Title Changed. I second this -- change title to "Michael Sneed Incident". I believe this is an important incident of fake news. This might get into textbook of journalism as a classic case. bluegene_ca 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on that day, when the world really has become as pathetic and needy as possible, and you all believe more in the rights of yourselfs than your countries... i promise i will take a gun to far more than 32 meaningless americans. --Jimmi Hugh 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all J.H.s over this page, I have to ask whether there is a conflict of interest involved. I believe once you made your point clear, you can move on, working on something important and constructive, such as, donate your time, money to support relatives of the 32 victims, to support a better safety system on campus. IMHO, you DO NOT have to jump up and down everywhere to make yourself visible. peace out bluegene_ca 06:24, 19 April 2007
      • In what way would me giving my money upto their familys by constructive? Do they suddenly not have money? This is exaclty the kind of attitude that is making me want to post more. You are all so PC now you actually beleive what yo uare saying. I continue to post when a comment makes a unique view point, and i am totally within my rights to question them and help the thinking process. The whole point of this is to improve wikipedia, and while people keep posting nonsensical arguments as to why the article should be kept, i hope to have the energy to discuss with them my own views. --Jimmi Hugh 06:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnotable minor incident. This entire article seriously violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight in dissecting every iota of change to the Sun-Times website without really underlining whether that's important. I've added a sourced paragraph to Chicago Sun-Times (after an anon kept adding a badly-formatted and unsourced bit about it), I really don't see why any more is necessary. Certainly a bio of Michael Sneed would violate WP:BLP if this were more than a tiny fraction of it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rename and massive trim and reorg. I feel somehow this was the wrong way to handle this procedurally (changing horses mid-AFD), but the end result is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Really, a bad reporter is not worthy of his own article, esp. when it's almost a duplicate of the Michael Sneed Incident. I said that some of the relevant info from the Michael Sneed Incident should be included in the Virginia Tech Massacre, But that's it. 10 years from now this woman will not be very notable. Radio-x 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should somehow have a criteria for notability. 10 years is definitely not a line, since after 10 years, most events recorded on this wiki will not be remembered. Just go out and check how many protests and demonstrations and unimportant elections are there, not to mention that probably none of those unimportant things got the media citation as much as this one. Should we delete all of them? Let's face the fact that this is notable just because so many people know it and is affected by it. Solely the fact that so many different people support the notability of this is, in my opinion, a sufficient proof that this is notable.--atou 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it with Michael Sneed Incident This is an historic incident reflecting the importance of integrity for news report. The tragedy itself requires deep reflection for human being, the behaviors of unfaithful news reporting require too. Is anything wrong acceptable just because some people are doing it on a daily basis? This incident should become another milestone in the history of journalism. Also I strongly agree with that this article be included in the Virginia Tech Massacre.Zhjlu 06:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was so close to resisting the urge to post again.. i really just want to walk away... but creating a third article when people have no even finished discussing the two already existing seems to be rather foolish given that they might make you delete it if deletion is decided. Can we not just wait until outcome is decided and not go making new pages based upon our own opinions? --Jimmi Hugh 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a revised title or content. The author of this item is required to keep neutral, as well as the rulers of the wiki. The truth is that, as one of teen millions of Chinese overseas, Michael Sneed's misleading rumor, which was widely broadcast by major news agencies, greatly affected the life of us. Of course, non Chinese overseas cannot feel that. Thus, to prevent such an incident from happening, to keep the neutrality of wiki, this item need revision but not deletion. Lemann — Lemann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. This is a footnote to the real story and is of little lasting interest. BTLizard 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect: The current article is not too long and this information could, and should, be in the main article. I would say this for most of the articles spun off the main Virginia Tech massacre article. --AEMoreira042281 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfect case of media being irresponsible and making up stories instead of reporting facts. It could be compared to the stem cell scandal by disgraced South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk. Even worse, after the error had been identified, a coverup scheme instead of sincere apology was underway. Therefore, this case is notebaly significant and deserves its place in wiki. Oldmonster 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— Oldmonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

---

• Per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I have renamed this article to a title that is more appropriate for a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout of Virginia Tech massacre#Inaccurate media reports. Uncle G 12:51, 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:POINT and 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]
  • We just moved it from Michael Sneed. There's good reasoning, if you ask me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 20 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 Virginia Tech massacre. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the rumor was widely reported and notable. It has much higher impact than say Essjay controversy and 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? — Cynosurexy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Of course we can... we can all tell as much sourced truth as we like... in the main article. --Jimmi Hugh 16:17, 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]

• Keep and rename to Michael Sneed Incident The current title is far too broad and biased which makes it impossible to be an accurate report or a NPOV one. I doubt any publication by human beings can cover all news accuracies related to any event at any time. The title should be more neutral and more accurate itself. "Michael Sneed Incident" is a good one.--atou 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't say keep a second time... Also note that the Michael Sneed Incident has already been redirected here, that argument is old. Please replace your vote with "Comment" --Jimmi Hugh 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As indicated at the beginning, this is not a majority voting system. Instead, it is a borad to express everyone's idea regarding this issue. Jimmi, you have said more than enough for your share, why not move on to something more meaningful? You are not giving any new reason for deleting other than "notability" issue. Can use give me any reason that Hwang Woo-suk staying here while this topic to be deleted based on "notability"? Oldmonster 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary: "Michael Sneed Incident" is a very bad one. It is not in accordance with our policies to name articles on events after a specific person when we have zero sources that do so. Please read our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Uncle G 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inaccurate media reporting about the massacre has been significant, and I'm sure even more will surface in the days to come. The article on the massacre itself and the article on the killer himself are already pretty large for this article to be merged. So let's keep this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into main article. Despite the fact that Jimmi Hugh seems to be dominating this debate, the incident is notable enough for mention, but probably not for an entire article; moreover, it would probably receive more viewing as part of the main article. Realkyhick 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move* to a section under Michael Sneed, currently that page has been mistakenly redirect to Chicago Sun-Times Cengao 17:11, 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.

• Keep. The reason Mhking mentioned above does't stand any more after all the changes and merges. And Mhking has changed his excuse to another one. Please remove from "Articles for deletion" category. Thanks! george 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)— georgeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - inaccurate media reports are standard for any disastrous event. And the focus on one specifc incident, although currently being hilighted, is still a current news event suitable for Wikinews rather than an encyclopedia article. At best, this is a footnote in the article about the Virginia Tech murders. - Whpq 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is recentism. It would be OK at Wikinews. The test "will anyone be interested in this ten years from now?" is a pretty good rule of thumb for an encyclopedia. --Trovatore 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I will be interested in this ten years from now. --Neo-Jay 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Michael Sneed or Chicago Sun-Times. If it's notable, it's a POV-fork, and if it's not notable, it doesn't belong. THF 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with main article. This article is only a couple fairly brief paras longer than what's currently in the main Virginia Tech massacre article, and thus could be merged without violating WP:SPACE (unlike, in my opinion, the other main branchings off from that article such as the timeline & victims list). --Yksin 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - why in all the heavens are we writing articles about one reporter making an error, however bad, when it's such a small part of the overall situation? This is hardly a bump on the road of the media storm that's surrounding this situation, and should be nothing more than a mention in the main article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Virginia Tech Massacre; include it in a subsection about media reportage of the incident. Alcarillo 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting, notable artcile, the main article will become very very very long in the end, so this is a very good idea. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Virginia Tech massacre Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misinformation is very common in breaking news stories. I really do not see why this instance deserves its own article. The information in the main article on the massacre is more than enough.--FreeKresge 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I do not think the media coverage issues should be part of the main article on the massacre. They should be kept substantially seperate. This article about the mistake identities and blog reports doesnt have to stand alone but media coverage issues like this are VERY IMPORTANT and I think should be viewed seperate from the killings themselves. Chris B Critter 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) — Chris B Critter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This isn't just about the 24-yr-old Chinese man claim I posted another point about the inaccurate media report of Cho "Railing Against Christianity" my point was immediately deleted by someone attempting to shorten the massacre artile and I've taken a measure to help organize and tidy up the article a bit. I suspect that further valid points about media inaccuracies have benn unreasonably deleted as well. Also, I'm not seeing much activity here on this page today and I wonder if this poll should be taken again for that reason. Finally, if this article must be deleted, then the information and points should be placed back on the VT massacre article Youngidealist 09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. The article contains factual content relevant to the massacre. --Effer^AKS 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kingboyk.--cj | talk 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

• Keep but Expand into a general article on the media coverage. That way NPOV is satisfied because the article would cover more than just one, controversial aspect. Plus we're already seeing questions being raised over the continued broadcast of the manifesto (Anderson Cooper was nailed to the wall about it last night by an FBI profiler who says it'll inspire more killings). Making reference to errors in reporting are fine, but it's only one part of a bigger picture, which in my opinion would make for a stronger, more interesting article, rather than pointing fingers at two (actually, now, three) people. 23skidoo 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There is no reason why there should be an article about this. It is insignificant and recentism. Not only that, but a much larger event, which had numerous, numerous, erroneous media reports was the September 11, 2001 attacks and there's no mention of reporting mistakes in that article, let alone a separate article about it. This is completely POV and does not deserve its own article. --myselfalso 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per above; no reason for a separate article here. -Phoenix 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't read much of the article, but what the ... is the point of it? The only encyclopedic concern is what happened. Nobody will care in ten years what people thought happened but didn't happen. Even such a famous gaffe as "Dewey defeats Truman" is not really worth much in the grand scheme of history. YechielMan 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In reflection, too, you think about it, and every such "nasty event" - Columbine, Ruby Ridge, Waco, 9/11, you name it - had its inaccurate press. Best example was the one you gave - Dewey Defeats Truman. It's one of the most famous. But all things considered, it is little more than interesting, and while many things here on Wikipedia hold interest to many people, they are not merely "interesting". On those grounds, I am altering my vote to a delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recentism is a very good description for this article. Wayne Chiang is going through AfD right now too. Anything that is truly useful in this article can be in the article about the event itself. It is ancillary to a wikipedia; we are not wikinews. The media made a mistake trying to report an event with imporper information. Again, we're not wikinews. This could be part of a much larger article about historical impact of the media errors on the major events, but nah. Kevin_b_er 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until passions subside. I think we will eventually end up with a separate article on Sneed. Major media errors that are internationally noticed are notable.DGG 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Charlene, Masaruemoto, Dhartung and Kevin_b_er. Article's interest is due to recentism. Five or ten years from now, the fact that a reporter got it wrong will merit no more than a sentence or two in the main article. It may be news, but it's just not encyclopedic. Pete.Hurd 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now ... revisit the issue in 6 months.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it and add more facts about the incident People here keep saying that it is not a big deal seeing untrue news reports. However, can you come up with a similar event in the history such that the false report is broadcasted wordwide in many mainstream meadia and finaly a government has to stand out and say something about it? This article should emphsize the notorious effects caused by the false report as well as how the society respond to it. The fact that there are intense debates on wikipedia is worth being included in this article. The reason that some people cannot understand the significance of this incident is that, as the majority in the society, they do not feel the pressures imposing on minority. Shoudn't wikipedia provide such an opportunity for the minority that their voices are heard?Zhjlu 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)— Zhjlu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • comment: Governments take umbrage at inaccurate media reports all the time (eg this false report in a Canadian newspaper, picked up on by other agencies, which drew protests from the Iranian govt). Not to mention all the times they complain about reports which have more than a grain of truth to them. The PRC govt is no exception. The essential facts of this incident can be, and are, documented in the main VT shootings article; they are not being discarded or minimised.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for giving the Canadian incident as an example. It is interesting to compare these two incidents. In the Canadian incident, the false report harms the reputation of A government while in the Michael Sneed incident, a whole group of human being feel being hurt. It appears that the protests from PRC govenment have nothing to do with its own reputation. In terms of the scopes, the massive media coverage and the assocation with a cold-blooded massacre make the Michael Sneed incident much more far-reaching. I think this incident shares some similaity with the "Wen Ho Lee" incident [2]. As a beginner wikipedian, I don't understand why there can be a wiki article about "Wen Ho Lee" while some people here don't allow an article about the Michael Sneed incident. Zhjlu 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but give it a section on the main VA tech shooting page. Mayorcheese 07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into main VA Tech massacre article - clearly notable incident(s) in view of the Chinese reactions and subsequent media coverage of the outrage. Wikipedia is there for China as much as it is there for the rest of the world. AvB ÷ talk 12:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sourced info not yet mentioned (if any) into the main VT shootings article, now that the focus has (rightly) been taken off Michael Sneed herself. This does not lose the information which others here are keen to retain, but actually places it where it is most relevant and appears in the proper context. There need be no concerns about bloating the main article, since it would take no more than about two paras to describe the incident in sufficient detail. Maintaining this as a separate article which delves into the minutiae is disproportionate. Alternatively, if there is sufficient material, then the proposal by 23skidoo above is a reasonable approach, namely to break out an article on the broader media coverage, handling and responses of the shootings (and not just this single aspect). But an article consisting only of this one aspect is not sustainable or warranted.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete maybe add a paragraph on the Journalism_scandals page, but this act by a negligent journalist does not deserve an article.
  • Comment This is a perfect example showing how bad news report was created, which was tempted to rush out in the first time at an urgent event at the expense of journalism standard. Most people here are non-Chinese and don't understand the feeling of the being falsely accused at the tragedy by an inaccurate news report referenced by many world-class media outlets in the shortest time around the globe. This article is worth being expended to fully cover the whole event of rumor spreading, of course, in accordance of Wiki's standards. And it may be of interest to people in journalism as well to see how to balance news quality and urgency at a critical event as VT Massacre. Wikipedia is for the whole human being. Incapable of fully comprehending the significance to a group of population at a particular event by a group of administrators doesn't necessarily mean the event is not worth being recorded by the greatest encyclopedia on the earth. Also, the principle of wikipedia allows people to participate during the forming of consensus. Now there is heated discussion going on. Deleting this article now will violate this principle. Wikipedia is maintained to its highest standard possible by administrators. When deleting an article, please think from the perspective of wiki's potential audience, the whole human being, not from your own preference in your own culture. Please refrain from cultural hegemony. Dongdongdog 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)— Dongdongdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (indented to comment, user already !voted) Rockpocket 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wayne Chiang and VA Tech massacre. Chiang's only claim to fame is being mistaken for the shooter, so anything about him here should be in his article. The Chinese reaction to the false ID of the shooter's nationality is notable enough to include in the VA Tech massacre article. Djcastel 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about Chiang personally, but about a significant news coverage incident which hurts not only a sizable group of people, but also the objectivity and reputation of news media of the United States in front of the whole world, and about the individual, Michael Sneed, who plays the role of initiator of this event.--Ww2007april 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When there is such confusion, and such a rush to get out news stories, it is totally normal that there may be investigative and reporting errors. The fact that they appear to have been perpetuated by other sources is also symptomatic of the pressure journalists are under. I don't feel the inaccuracies make for a notable subject, but may be worth a mention in the main article, as the incident will not pass the "10 year test". Once the pandemonium and outrage have subsided, hindsight will bring the Virginia Tech massacre article and related series back into objective encyclopaedic editing, which is clearly lacking at this point in time. Ohconfucius 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking about objectivity, how objective is it -- attempting to totally erase or minimize much as possible the footprint of one influential event? Enlighten me, please. Ww2007april 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see how deletion of this article would in any way whatsoever "totally erase or minimize much as possible the footprint of one influential event". Forget not, the Virginia Tech massacre is "the event". This, by contrast, is a non-event which did not cause a diplomatic incident - it provoked nothing but a mild rebuke of sloppy journalism from the Chinese authorities, and is just a "smudge" worthy of no more than a sentence in the article of the massacre. Ohconfucius 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP. The Michael Sneed Incident is significant as being the very starting point of a wave of inaccurate reporting in Fox news and other news outlets. Pressure alone does not exempt journalists from professional standards. The fact CNN and many other major news outlets were fairly cautious as not to follow Michael Sneed's lead, did demonstrate a stronger sense of social responsibility. We need to keep in mind that in today's world, information flow through mass media are not merely words and pics, it changes people's lives. And inaccurate reporting, whether deliberated or not intended, could induce racial hatred, not one person, but a whole group of human beings' career, living, even their very lives, could be threatened. The efforts of some delete voters here could be very well intentioned, as to minimize the social impact of this particular incident, which might serve to reduce the racial discrimination flavor from the context of this particular incident. There's much debate within Asian community in face of visible and not so visible racial backlash caused by the VT tragedy. Is it wise to draw more attention during the time when the cherished "model minority" status is already half lost?

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 Wayne Chiang or 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. El hombre de haha 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just being able to source some piece of information allows it to satisfy WP:A, but does not guarantee satisfaction of WP:N, or indeed any other policy or guideline. Losing detail and quality of information is not an argument to avoid deletion. Ohconfucius 09:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the content, what little of NPOV content that can be retrieved, can easily be merged into the main article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:31, 24 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:List, is well referenced, and there is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policy standards. You might want to add information from The Impact of Virginia Tech on the News, Broadcasting and Cable. 4/23/07, to the article. -- Jreferee 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC). Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre by Michael Sneed has not been reported by any WP:RS, oddly making this well referenced article original research. Without WP:RSs saying "this is what Michael Sneed reported" and "it is inaccurate", the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. Both the article title and lead paragraph are misleading and potentially 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.