- 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 redirected to Virginia Tech massacre. Friday (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan C. Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia is not a memorial. This person is completely not notable other than the fact that he died recently. // Sean William 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not independently notable. Information can be put in parent article and split to a "victims" article later. StuffOfInterest 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable on his own. Information can put into the main article or put into a "victims" page. 24.187.132.100 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, in response to arguments on the talkpage that he may prove to have played a key role in the events, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Does not meet our notability requirements. Clear precedents with victims of other shooting/bombings/natural distasters. WjBscribe 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable on his own, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Include in a victims section of the main article. Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant info to the main article (Most of the info in the article is not relevant. It's an obit.) He's a small player in a major story. Friday (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Noclip 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Per User:Cyrus Andiron Noclip 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Jackk 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable aside from recent events, fails WP:BIO. Could be merged into main article although I don't think we need that much bio information on the deceased. --Cyrus Andiron 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now - This is process for the sake of process. Do you really know enough facts to delete at this point? Articles are built over time. Let the article be built and decide what to do with it in a week or so. Too may people here are more interested in voting and process than adding useful facts to the encyclopedia. Stop spending your time wasting the time of people who are trying to add sourced material that our readers what to read. WAS 4.250 14:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the issues I have with articles like these is that after a while, the article begins to sound like the person did absolutely nothing in their life other than die in a shooting. There aren't many reliable sources (if any) about this person's life prior to the shootings. // Sean William 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, exactly. This won't change. We know about him because of his involvement in the story, nothing else. This is a very obvious candidate for a mention in the main article, not a seperate article. Friday (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually out of respect for our editors we should handle this as quickly as possible. Why waste their time adding details to an article which may not exist in 5 days? The simple fact is there is zero evidence this person is currently noteable. He may or may not become noteable as a result of his actions, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and presuming he will is silly Nil Einne 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the issues I have with articles like these is that after a while, the article begins to sound like the person did absolutely nothing in their life other than die in a shooting. There aren't many reliable sources (if any) about this person's life prior to the shootings. // Sean William 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to agree with Friday. I realize this is may sound insensitive, but the only reason this man is in the news is because he died. Had he been off campus during the shooting, we wouldn't be discussing him. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind waiting to delete or merge. There really isn't going to be any more news is there? Unless they discover the cure for cancer locked away in his dorm room, I'm not sure how he is going to become any more notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above, as with G. V. Loganathan. --Czj 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The few sentences in this article regarding the massacre could easily be incorporated into the Virginia Tech massacre article. The rest of the article is merely an obituary and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Stebbins 14:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Although his killing was part of a very sad incident, it does not really justify an article here. --MoRsE 14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but consider un-merging if enough information becomes available to later create a stand-alone article (doubtful but possible). --ElKevbo 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if in the future it can be established that he's noteable then recreate. At the current time this is far from clear and wikipedia is not a crystal ball (note this is not the same thing as the professor cases where the professors may or may not be independently notable) Nil Einne 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with no prejudice against a separate article at some future time if it is demonstrably necessary. I find such need unlikely, but this search term needs to be preserved for the matter, and thus a redirect/merge is needed for GFDL purposes. -- nae'blis 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - without preaching too much, I'd like to say that we live in a really screwed up society where killers get more recognition than their victims. It does not hurt Wikipedia at all for there to be mentionings of the deceased - at least on the incident page, if not in a separate article. If the murderer gets an entire page, notable only as a piece of shit, then why don't the victims receive the same courtesy. At the same time, I recognize that there are many victims of all sorts of crimes that don't get mentioned, so why should these people get any special attention? Thus my vote for a merge. At the same time, I think that the article on the killer should be merged as well. He deserves no special recognition. Godheval 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - as per above. Jauerback 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I understand people feeling compassion for the victims and wanting to participate somehow in an event the news channels are following with breathless round-the clock coverage by creating lots of articles about the victims, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he can be mentioned appropriately in the main article. Apparently none of them are notable except for getting shot when they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ditto for the other victims. We do not need to wait and collect facts to delete an article: the process works the other way. When multiple independent articles have been printed over a period of time in reliable sources, THEN consider individual articles if there is too much encyclopedic material to fit in the main article.(edit conflict 4 times) Edison 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above, redirect, and add any needed information to main article. TomTheHand 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep BlueLotas 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This process is not a vote. Please give policy-based reasons to support your opinion. WjBscribe 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He was the first person killed in the massacre, and this article has plenty of references. BlueLotas 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is it time to call this one WP:SNOW. --StuffOfInterest 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only notable in the context of the massacre. Keeping his name on the main article's list of victims should be sufficient.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia (should be). Ryan C. Clark isn't relevant in an encyclopedic way. Marcus Cyron 15:06, 17 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.