Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily J. Hilscher

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Redirect. This was a difficult AfD, but I am happy with the by and large civil discussion that took place in a contentious and emotional topic. The main reasoning was 1) at the end there was a roughlly 2/3rds majority in favor of deletion and that majority becomes even stronger when one removes very new users and IPs. 2) As a policy matter, the deletion arguments were stronger. Claims that she was a motivation behind the killings and not simply the first unlucky person seem to have little basis and if they turn out to be true, a separate article can always be recreated. If, as with Rachel Scott she becomes notable, then we can easily recreate the page. In general, per long-standing policy, victims of crimes are not notable simply for being victims, and at this point there is no reason to think that there is anything else occuring in this case. However, one point must be made clear: some users (some in favor of keeping, others in favor of deletion) seem to have confused notability with meaningfulness or worth as a human being. For example, one person arguing for deletion stated that "She didn't do anything meaningful and didn't even die meaningfully; she is, was, and forever will be no one"- Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with whether someone's life was "meaningful", whether the person "died meaningfully" or whether the person is "no one". I don't pretend to know what makes a life meaningful or to know what it means to die meaningfully, but I do know that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia inclusion standards. Wikipedia inclusion is not the test for whether or not one has succeeded in life or whether the person's life was meaningful. There is no "sola Wikipedia" or something similar. Too often we get caught up in paying too much attention to what occurs on this project. Let us not forget that there is a wider world out there and let's show some respect for the dead. JoshuaZ 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily J. Hilscher

edit
Emily J. Hilscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable beyond the event of her death. We've gone through this on numerous others. Unless she had something which made her notable before her death she is just a section of the main article as the initial victim. Also, at this point, much is speculation. See the AfD for Ryan C. Clark for another example. StuffOfInterest 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. She was not affiliated with Cho Seung-hui. In the event that more information is found that makes her a prominent figure in this, this article can be easily recreated.
  • Strong Keep It does seem that she was the major motivation behind this event. If that is indeed the case, she's certainly notable. The article should definitely be kept atleast until this is clearly determined. If she was in fact not involved with the assailment (as seems to be the case), and there was no other causal relationship between her and the events, then my vote goes to a Merge. I suggest waiting until the facts are more clearly established. --Daydreamer302000 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ryan C. Clark's AFD. These people are not notable enough to have their own articles. Put all of this information in with the main article Virginia Tech Massacre. --iggy_27_99
  • Keep Whether she wasn't notable before the shooting doesn't seem that important: she's still notable. Although it isn't an acceptable reason for a keep vote, I would like to point out that we have articles on Rachel Scott (who was also the first victim) and Cassie Bernall from Columbine. And for the record, Cho Seung-hui wasn't notable before his death either. In any event, this article has sources that assert the notability of the subject, exactly the type of article we should encourage on Wikipedia. --YbborTalkSurvey! 12:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not an appropriate comparison because those two Columbine victims have had entire books written about them. Is that the case for this woman? Not yet. In the future, if she is covered in the same way those victims are, she'll have her article, too. For now, it's just too early.---Gloriamarie 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is the unacceptable argument that since there are other articles which fail WP:N we should add yet another. Edison 15:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes, that's why I explicitly stated in my !vote that "Although it isn't an acceptable reason for a keep vote..." In a similar fashion, the nominator's mention of Ryan C. Clark is equally as poor justification. I still think it fulfills notability, it has "multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The fact that a single event made her notable seems wholly irrelevant. --YbborTalkSurvey! 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I disagree about the Ryan C. Clark issue. OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't apply here. The nominator doesn't appear to have been saying delete this because Ryan C. Clark was deleted (which is a poor argument) but that the AFD for Ryan C. Clark provides many arguments for why the article on him was deleted which also apply here. If you were mentioning the Rachel Scott etc AFDs which provided argument which apply here then it would be a similar thing but you're just mentioning the existance of the article which isn't a good argument. As mentioned by someone else below, most of the arguments for the existance or Rachel Scott etc likely don't apply here. Nil Einne 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Scott and Bernall became (arguably) notable after their deaths due to various projects which they inspired, not simply because of how they died; Cho, obviously, became (unfortunately) notable slightly prior to his death. MisfitToys 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd like to expand upon my original argument. A lot of people are bringing up WP:MEMORIAL. All this states is that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The article is not about her being fondly remembered, and the sources talk about her beyond being fondly remembered. She's noteable for something beyond being fondly remembered. so WP:MEMORIAL doesn't really apply. --YbborTalkSurvey! 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rob 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely not notable for reasons other then the person's death. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ryan C. Clark's AFD. These people are not notable enough to have their own articles. Put all of this information in with the main article Virginia Tech Massacre. --Cyrus Andiron 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of now, the subject isn't notable beyond the Virginia Tech massacre. Ybbor mentioned in his keep vote above that Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott each have their own articles, but they have achieved a level of notability beyond (albeit connected to) the circumstances of their deaths through a book and an outreach program, respectively. I will fully support a new article for Hilscher once she receives some kind of notability other than having died in this incident, but until then, my vote is to delete. (My original intent was to vote to merge the article with Virginia Tech massacre or Cho Seung-hui, but the information seems to already be in those articles). Jeff Silvers 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per User:Cyrus Andiron. -Mschel
  • Merge If information comes out in upcoming weeks indicating her to be more notable (like if she was the chief motive), then we can always recreate it.--MrFishGo Fish 13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The girl was not in a relationship with the killer, reportedly didn't even know him, and is just one of 31 people killed. She is the first in the timeline, but there is no need for her own page. Are we going to have an individual page for each victim? I highly doubt it, and this page would just end up being a quasi-memorial to her. All of the reports about her relationship with Cho have proven to be false, so there is no need to keep attempting to pull her into a melodramatic fictional story about an angry ex-boyfriend. Bluefield 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. it is too early to say whether this article is of use. for now it may be of use, and as news develops, it is wiser to keep adding to this article. Kingturtle 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. She's the first victim, and really nothing more. Other than shoddy initial reporting that she was a girlfriend to Cho, which seems borderline impossible (especially considering her real boyfriend was questioned and in custody of officials), there is nothing about her that seperates her from the other victims. If not for bad reports, she's just the first person (however tragically) killed. She isn't the "spark" to this incident, at most she was an object of obsession for the killer. President David Palmer 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DeleteDelete or Merge Showcasing someone because she was a (first) victim in a massacre, is not very encyclopaedic. She fails to qualify notability criteria, plus the article will never have any RS for anything besides her being the first victim.--Scheibenzahl 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable for being first victim. Jauerback 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge anywhere - textbook WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, "notable" only in death. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 14:28Z
  • Keep Well according to news reports(including bbc news on the bbc world channel) they knew each other, and a disagreement between them might have started it. again this is not a memorial, she was the first and according to this credible source(which I rely on for editing) she could have been in the center of it. So yes she is notable. also according to the bbc he didn't write the note until after he killed her and the dorm resident. maybe it wasn't even planned. either way it goes once the dust settles, if this page is deleted, it will be recreated once there are concrete evidence of her involvment. --Witchinghour 14:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment all you guys below please don't put words in my mouth, i didn't say here that they were in love. I don't know either one of them. but on the bbc news channel which is not a tabloid type of channel as far as i know, they said that it might have revolved around her, that's all. And as for the US media, i think they are busy in vilifiyng him. just read the titles on the cnn.com website such as "Downright 'Mean'". --Witchinghour 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being in a love affair with a would-be serial killer does not make one notable. If she was 100 miles away from Cho on Monday, would a word have been written about her in the BBC, or anywhere else? I suppose not! —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 14:45Z
      • He was a multiple murderer, not a serial killer. And either way, she isn't notable for such alleged and unverified involvement. Onikage725
  • Delete I haven't seen any credible American media reports that Hilscher knew Cho, let alone that they were dating, so any statements to this effect are only speculation at this point in time. I would rather delete this page now than keep it and spread false information. --38.100.43.50 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing here that isn't in the main article. Natalie 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we should keep it! And we should also add articles about her friend who intervened what may have started the killing. And about her parents because they were interviewed about the relationship (though sadly, they seem to have known nothing). And about the parents of the intervening friend--at least the local media is sure to have interviewed them, so there must be something in the news about them. And about the gardener of the father-in-law of the ex-babysitter of the ex-boyfriend of the elementary school classmate of the intervening friend because in case he doesn't know a thing, he hasn't followed the news and that's quite noteworthy with respect to such an event. And about... --Ibn Battuta 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (don't merge) per nom, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and precedents. --Pjacobi 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the usual reasons. Adam Bishop 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is not notable enough for her own article. Perhaps a mention in the Cho article, OR a specific mention in the Massacre page, but not her own article. As sad as it is that she died, she simply isn't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Ubergenius 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (better) redirect to Virginia Tech massacre; all information is there. Tizio 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedeia is not a memorial with articles for everyone who is murdered. The university police thought her murder was a non-notable domestic event until the killer shot people inthe classrooms a couple of hour later. In spree killing articles, the victims names are often listed in the main article, or are mentioned in describing the sequence of events, since these tragedies unfold over time and space and there may be interactions between the killer and victims which affect the sequence of events (unlike most plane crashes or terrorist bombings where the names are generally not listed. Edison 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm glad the professors are getting articles, they definitely deserve them under WP:PROF, however this girl is not notable for anything but being dead. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is useless on its own; any encylopedic information about this unlucky girl can be summarized in the Virginia Tech massacre and Cho Seung-hui articles.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even worth argument... she was in no way notable in life. Of course her name is information that should be in the main article and murderers article. --Jimmi Hugh 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing of value to say about this person other than her victim status. Aleksael 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Anything in this that may be of value needs to be moved to Cho's page. Later on, if they release a lot of his writing and we find proof that she was a major part of his motives, then remake the article with that information. If not, no seperate article is needed. J0lt C0la 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cho's page or to Virginia Tech Massacre, whichever is deemed more appropriate. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic, though notable only becase of her death, no outside notability to fit wikipedia standards 74.132.172.179 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Fsamuels 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Non-notable per above. Richard 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Nn beyond her death, which is covered in as much detail as we know at Virginia Tech Massacre. Rockpocket 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. WP:NOT a memorial. Daniel Case 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; unlike the professors we have articles on, she is only notable in death it seems. -- Zanimum 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely KEEP!!! She is the first victim in THE worst school shooting in U.S. history and as the event continues to play out on the media her unfortunate notoriety will continue to grow, especially because it's a sure thing that barring the apocalypse books, movies, etc. will be made about this tragic event and so increasingly over time her story will grow as will the sources and relevance of her place in this aspect of history. Moreover, at least for the time being, people will want to learn more about these people and so deleting this will do a disservice to curious Wikipedia readers and researchers. --164.107.223.217 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not a valid argument to keep the article. Yes, she was the first victim in the worst shooting to date. So, if in 2 years time, a shooting occurs where more people are murdered, is she still notable? The professors are notable because they have done things beyond just the shooting, and have specific stories that are being told of heroism. She, on the other hand, was merely the first victim, and that is it. If more details emerge (such as, she tried to stop him, or something), then an article MAY be worth creating, but for now, it just isn't. It is tragic, and I am still sickened by the events of that day, but emotion cannot get in the way of making these kinds of decisions. -- Ubergenius 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean this article (which has also been nominated for deletion)? These AfDs are putting the editors of the original VT massacre article into a cruel predicament where they spin off daughter articles as the main article continues to grow and grow and grow but each of those daughter articles are themselves nominated for deletion. Meanwhile, others (rightfully) complain that the original article is was too long and contents should be moved out into daughter articles. Not only does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing, they're actively working against one another. :) --ElKevbo 23:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break #1

edit
Those two victims became notable in their own right well after the slayings took place. If Hilscher becomes the inspiration for books and organizations as Scott and Bernall did, then we can write an article about her. For now, however, the article should be deleted. See WP:CRYSTAL.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many more "Deletes" need to be recorded before this article actually gets deleted and/or merged? It looks to be pretty overwhelmingly "Delete" here. Bluefield 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: The process allows five days of discussion on an AfD before the decision whether or not to delete or merge is made. --Yksin 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? Uh, have you been exposed to any major media outlet in the past week or so? She's probably far more notable than many topics you have written about or edited on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary section break #2

edit
  • Comment. I'll second that motion myself. It's obvious that there is some consensus here.

└Jared┘┌talk┐  13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, victims of other school massacres don't have their own entries. Unless they started a Emily fund or something significant (like Rachel Scott), this is not a keep. --207.7.222.227 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As has been said many times, the article doesn't meet the criteia (I hate the term "she fails to meet" as it implies some fault on her part). The article itself is basically a stub and the info is already presented in at least two articles already. This article is basically a memorial, which is not encyclopedic. Liviu Librescu, for example, has a large amount that is written about his life and it concludes with the nature of his death. All Emily's article does is tell the world she was gunned down by a psycho. Onikage725 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge & redirect back into the article about the shootings. I mean no disrespect but she herself is not notable. Cornell Rockey 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for all reasons given.. Wyv 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, for all of the overhwelming keep reasons given. Her name will have a place in history and is relevant; it's the FIRST victim of the worst school shooting in U.S. history, not the 13th or something. The bloodbath begins with her and that is notable. As films and stuff are made, this will be expanded with who played her what books were written about her, etc. So deletionism in this case is way too premature. --172.130.214.143 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People die violently every day. The truth in these words is tragic I know, but in a month at most everyone will forget about her completely. Truth of the matter is that while events are remembered, names are not. She did not do anything notable. She just happened to be the first victim. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So how is listing her any different than listing the first American soldier killed in the Gulf War and similar (yeah, it exists). Articles for those people are often HUGE, fileld of completely meaningless information. But apparently that's OK.

Edit: Didn't find the Gulf War one, I found someone even better. Explain to me WHY this guy is notable. (Djungelurban 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a justification. If an article is not in line with wikipedia policy, the existence of similar articles does not justify it. Come to think of it that article will probably go up for AFD now as well. I might nominate it later if I have time. When a 6 year old hits someone, and uses "he did it too" as a justification, does it fly? No. Shouldn't with mature Wiki editors either.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment as above. Crystal ballery? Rockstar (T/C) 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But what exactly are these "headlines" reporting? Nothing notable, they're nothing more than memorials/obituaries about their lives. The CNN headline (reported by AJ24) is simply a picture, and they have the same memorial/obituaries for ALL victims of the shooting. If notability comes from being the first victim of the shooting then fine, the only notable information about her is "Emily Hilscher - first shooting victim" which can be accomplished in a single line on the main Virginia Tech Shooting page. What else about her, including anything "reported" in these "news headlines" is notable? Tejastheory 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Expand the article. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. --Christopher Thomas 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - No expansion to be done. Savidan 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random act of violence. - Gilliam 00:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Resolute 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Keep / Merge At the risk of treading into WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS territory, I think it's important to note that victims of many less notable violent crimes are well-represented on Wikipedia, many of whose articles have withstood AfD debates, even if books haven't been written about them. Paul Bernardo's victims, Laci Peterson, and every once of Jack the Ripper's victims. Sure, their names have popped up in plenty of books, but are they notable on their own? That seems to be the question. By the most literal interpretation of Wikipedia's standards, (i.e., "multiple, non-trivial sources") it would appear that they are. This is an open debate, not your own personal torch to carry. It is very likely that this young lady's name will appear alongside the names of all the other victims in countless books to come, and that is the sole reason why I am voting the way I am. It has nothing to do with memorializing, and shame on anyone who would presume that to be the only motive behind a vote to keep or merge. It has only to do with an accurate reflection of history, and an interest in being thorough. TrevorPearce 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's all well and good, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't keep an article that fails to meet any criteria and is basically a stub representing information that is currently stated on other more appropriate articles simply because she might hypotehtically end up mentioned in other media in the future. If such occurs (and that very well may be the case) then an article can and should be written. As it stands right now, the article does not stand up to scrutiny. Onikage725 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: "Delete" is such a harsh word and is messing w/ people emotions/reactions to the "deletion". No disrespect, but the girl isn't notable for an article without other content that is (a) unrelated to the massacre; and (b) of interesting encyclopedic value. The majority of the content at present (with the exception of the first paragraph) is about the VT massacre, therefore this qualifies as a redirect back to that article and explained there. The article at present is proving this. +mwtoews 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but if people do not understand what delete means in this situation then they should not be casting opinion. The point of these pages is to discuss policy... if people do no know policy i see no reason for them to be discussing it. Delete is also exactly what should happen. A merger implies content is kept solid... i.e. it gets its own section in the main article. In this case this murder deserves a single line, she was not notable before she died, there is no reason to make her notable now. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She deserves her own page as do all the victims of this tradgedy, maybe you should consider deleting mr chos page perhaps.
    • Ok deal... i will create a page full of information for each of these people... if you create a page for every single Iraqui Murdered in, lets say, the last year alone! -- Jimmi Hugh 02:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan C. Clark. — Scientizzle 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. It is the massacre that is notable, not her.--FreeKresge 02:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Frankly, if there's going to be a page for someone like Cho, there should be a page for each of his victims. Cho wanted to live on forever, much like the killers of Columbine. Either keep Emily's page and don't make him as special as the people he killed, or delete his too. Don't let him be notorious like he wanted to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.185.150 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment Your argument is entirely invalid. You're basically saying she deserves an article so Cho doesn't "win," but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. For better or worse, Cho is noteworthy enough for his own article, but Hilscher isn't, at least not by Wikipedia's standards. If we create an article for Hilscher just based on the fact that her murderer has one, too, we have to create an article for every victim of a spree or serial killer, and that's ridiculous. I'd also like to point out that this anonymous IP's only wiki contribution has been to vote in this AfD. Jeff Silvers 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There Jeff goes again with the ad hominem attacks. When someone must resort to that, you know their arguments are weak - especially those that consist of "Your argument is entirely invalid" (universally recognized as a substitute for substance). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep If Wikipedia is supposed to be a tool for compiling human knowledge in a more comprehensive and navigable fashion than was previously possile in other media, what is the point of eliminating this article? It's merely a link that people can follow for more information if they choose, and it's not costing us anything or diluting the quality of information available. Unless it's misleading or inaccurate, I really don't see how removing this entry does anyting besides reduce the total amount of information available to those who are interested in this subject. We don't need to play the role of information gatekeeper without a better reason than "people might consider this irrelevant eventually." Bradrules 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an encyclopedia, we do need to play the role of information gatekeeper. Sure, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it also cannot, and should not, be about everything (read this link for more info). Wikipedia needs standards for articles, and is not just an information heap. Wikipedia, in other words, is not Google. Rockstar (T/C) 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be setting the bar needlessly high; while this is information isn't central to the main story, it's certainly not useless. I tend to think that since Wikipedia isn't constrained by resources like print space or airtime, if something is borderline newsworthy, it's better to err on the side of being a little over-inclusive than under-inclusive. That's one of the main advantages that this format has over traditional media, and it's silly not to take advantage of it. There's a difference between this and some idiot who makes a page about his friend just because he thinks it'd be cool to see his name here. The mere fact that there's even this involved of a discussion about it has me convinced that this information is of interest to enough people that it's worth keeping. Bradrules 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm sorry for the loss, but people are obviously being too emotional right now to understand any of Wikipedia's policies. I also face deaths and losses, but I'm not compelled to keeping a memorial here; they don't deserve the treatment people are giving right now to the said victim. Let it go, people. Get on with your lives. 218.208.115.25 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the people who need to "get on with their lives" are the ones who are so vehement about deleting this single page, when there are so many other pages on Wikipedia that are so blatantly less relevant than this one. If those people really cared about the principles they are so fired up about on this page, they'd be busy elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - how can you justify deleting this article when Wikipedia is replete with articles on irrelevant people like Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda and thousands of fictional characters such as Lumpawarrump and Mallatobuck from the The Star Wars Holiday Special and innumerable Star Trek characters like Kodos the Executioner and Gorkon? With Wikipedia stuffed with articles such as those, how can anyone keep a straight face while arguing that this article about a real person who was murdered in one of the worst episodes of violence in American history doesn't belong on Wikipedia?
  • Comment Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is hardly "irrelevant." I can't vouch for the Star Wars characters because I'm not a follower of that series and therefore can't verify their relevance, but really, it seems like most people who are voting to keep are doing so with misguided, emotion-fueled motives--suggesting that Hilscher "deserves" an article because she died in a very tragic way. It's sad, but that doesn't mean we should write a Wikipedia article for her. Also, it's worth noting that the above anonymous IP user has a grand total of two edits as of this posting: the vote here and a comment at Talk: Emily J. Hilscher. Jeff Silvers 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem arguments are unnecessary and you have no idea how many edits that person has made. But you want to go down that road, fine; answer us this: Why would you or others be wasting so much time and energy taking a stand against this article instead of cleaning out all of the thousands of far less important, relevant, notable pages? Oh, and how is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda relevant to anything? How is Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda relevant yet Emily Hilscher is not?
Just as a note, while Ad Hominem is discouraged on wikipedia, it's standard practice to point out editors with extremely low edit counts on AfDs, especially when their only edits are on the subject of the AfD. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, any response? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As Phoeba Wright mentioned, pointing out anonymous IPs whose only contributions have been to the AfD in question is standard Wikipedia procedure. I wasn't implying that you're an inadequate editor and that therefore your opinion doesn't matter; I was only pointing it out because (as implied by the tag at the top of the page) there appears to be a lot of activity in this AfD by people who ostensibly have no prior WP experience, which leads one to suspect they may've been lead to vote here. And as far as Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is concerned, being a religious (and, some say, cult) leader with numerous followers who believe him to be the reincarnation of Christ and a supposed ministry presence in twenty countries is far more notable than being the first of thirty-three people to die in a particular incident. Jeff Silvers 07:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -

She deserves mention, but so do all the other victims. I think it should be similar to the 9/11 victims list.

  • Comment: I think the people arguing for "keep" really haven't critically thought this through, and are a bit hypocritical as the state of the article has not been significantly added to in the past day. All of the information I presently see in this article is repeated elsewhere, and rightfully belong in the main article(s). The primary focus of Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a scrap piece of internet where every tidbit needs to be repeated. I would be happy to switch my vote once the article has something of unique encyclopedic value that is independent of the massacre or not directly related (for example, if a scholarship was named after her as a result). It is much more informative for readers to have the present content in context of the main article(s); not as a small independent article. And if you really really do want to keep, please justify why it is valid to repeat information out of context from the main article! +mwtoews 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this information can easily be mentioned in an article of victims of VTS, but no separate article is needed. abach 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before she was killed, she was not the subject of multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Now she is, so she's notable. --Eastmain 20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why delete? noway, sir!

  • Keep. Notable victim of a major criminal incident. —Ferrett3 (reply) 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete While I sympathise that a lot of the people who have commented on this page have had strong emotional reactions to recent events (I do not exclude myself from that), there is no compelling reason to keep this page whatsoever.Parmesan 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain RaveenS 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre, not notable before the event. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we do not need articles for all the victims of this event - only those who would meet WP:BIO without this having happened or some time after the event. The closing admin should note that many of the keep votes are various forms of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 00:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because, like it or not, this person, in death, is notable. Multiple verifiable sources bear out this assertion. 204.42.27.110 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: People are emotional and the facts are still coming in. Notability seems doubtful, but it's too soon to delete. Peter Grey 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: this is getting too disjointed. Keep them all on one page. Only their death was the notable event as people said. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an addendum to what I said earlier, I think a good reference point for this would be something like the Challenger disaster, which was similar in terms of public notoriety and also involved a sizeable number of deaths, but not so many that it's impractical to list them. The short bios about the people who died in that disaster seem to indicate a precedent that this kind of information is different from a "memorial" due to the importance of event that it's attached to. Bradrules 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But this is totally different than the Challenger disaster; everybody who died aboard the Challenger had something notable about them other than having died in the accident (whether it was accomplishments before the disaster or something posthumous). Emily Hilscher is not too much more notable right now than the other victims, and the only facts for which she stands out from them--that she was the first one killed and that the police initially suspected she had a relationship with Cho--could easily be mentioned in the Virginia Tech massacre article without cluttering it up at all. Since those two facts are the only facts that make her more notable than the others who died, there's no rationale for keeping this article. Jeff Silvers 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of rationales listed all over this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Get off your conspiracy theory high horse. Some of us read and use Wikipedia without doing much else with it. Just because this is something that interests people who usually do not get into this stuff doesn't mean you should devalue our opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
First of all, please be civil. Second, I point this out because it appears there have been a lot of anonymous IPs who are only voting in this AfD with ostensibly no prior experience here. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be able to edit Wikipedia without having to sign up, and I'm not trying to devalue people's opinions because they lack accounts, but it does seem like people are being led here simply to vote (and before you write my concerns off as a "conspiracy theory," take note that this is a pretty common problem with high-profile AfDs). Jeff Silvers 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- should be part of article, but doesn't stand on it's own -- it's a detail of the main article, incidental to the main story. WP:BIO notes that incidental material does not qualify for an article. Pablosecca 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was hapy to consider keeing it while everyone thought she might be the shooter's girlfriend, but she didn't even know him, so her article should be deleted. Anyway there are a lot of people who want to keep the "List of victoms" article. I can't really imagine what else it'll say asaide from the order in which they died. So deleting this article makes a stronger case for keeping the list of victims article. JeffBurdges 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ybbor --Rita Moritan 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a consolidated victims' list that includes notable published details. Everyking 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a memorial. Stubbleboy 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - she was the first victim so was notable for being involved in the beginning of this whole incident. I notice the first victim of Columbine has their own article and according to what I've heard there were less people killed or wounded there. Whatever about her not having her own article, couldn't all the victims be merged together on one page at least? --DevelopedMadness 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has been stated before (though I don't blame you for not having read it since this is a huge AfD), two of the Columbine victims have their own articles because they became particularly notable beyond just having died in a school shooting; one inspired a nationwide campaign, and the other was (erroneously) associated with an exchange with one of the shooters that became famous after the event (not to mention having had a book written about her). Jeff Silvers 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment On Fox News earlier today (around 2 PM Eastern Time), the reporter mentioned that police are looking into evidence that Cho may have emailed her warning of the attack and the police want to review his AND HER internet records. So, her noteworthiness in this fiasco may be increasing as I type and I think people should probably hold off on deleting until everything plays out as she can wind up being prominent not just as the first victim in the worst school shooting in American history, but also because of possible connections with the murderer or even having potentially been warned, but if nothing else, the police are looking into her as news whereas I don't recall hearing anything similar about other victims. I hope that helps. --24.154.173.243 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for at least a while

It's not like if we don't delete this article the world will end! Keep it! Or merge it into an article called "List of Viginia Tech Massacre Victims" or something like that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • keep for a while,then delete i believe that it is alittle too soon to worry about this.i think we should just let it stay for a few months or so.i think its disrespectful to delete her page so soon after she died,y'know?The Pink Panther 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a matter of being respectful... Also, the same argument could be applied to most people who die. Does this mean we should keep an article for a few months for them all if someone writes one? Nil Einne 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - before her death she was no more notable than I am, and her death only makes her worthy of note on the main page or, if the Victims page be notable, worthy of mention thereon. Nyttend 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I just realised that I already expressed my opinion up above Nyttend 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page and merge its contents into List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, or (if that fails its own AFD test), Virginia Tech massacre. Yes, her death was tragic and deserves a memorial, but Wikipedia is not the place for that; and there appears to be nothing particularly notable about her over any of the other victims. If, by the time this AFD is up, no actual, useful information has been found to add to this page (currently, it says virtually nothing), it should be deleted. Terraxos 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- It's an electronic encyclopedia that can be revised at any time. Keep it for now, see what develops and delete it at a later date. It's not like the site will run out of storage. Pgrote 01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, her notability has not been sufficiently established. The article may be recreated if "information comes in". —ptk✰fgs 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 2 RS newspaper articles on her now to meet the present technical requirements for N. (& there will be more, since both the Washington Post & the NY Times are doing a feature article on each one of them. -- these papers think that each individual victim is appropriate for an article. So will other papers, which will provide many more than the necessary two sources. There is obviously no real consensus about whether 2 RS are all that is needed for N, regardless of the subject. The rules seem to say so, some people seem to think so, many of the people here do not agree. If delete in a case like this really is the consensus it may simplify some of the N discussions now going on, because this seems to be clearly saying that being the subject of independent feature articles in 2 major newspapers is not always enough for N. This unmistakably indicates we cannot combine the rules, and that we now mean articles must have 2 independent RS and also meet some additional notability criterion, whatever that may be. That's what the delete opinions above are saying. I don't say this is wrong, but I do wonder if this is proposed as a general rule for WP. DGG 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For all of those saying "being the first death in the massacre is not a big deal: why is there a page on Xavier Mertz, the first person to die of an overdose of Vitamin A? In addition, many good points are made above, especially the one about people flocking here to veto this article about a real and newsworthy person and how those same people apparently have no interest in the same sort of content control when it comes to some really flaky and fruity fictional characters who have pages all over Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.117.101 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Ybbor Stoic atarian 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per standard notability guidelines. Plus, Other Stuff Exists is not a good reason for supporting a Keep vote. Kntrabssi 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOW LONG MUST THIS GO ON... THE OBVIOUS CONSENSUS HERE IS TO DELETE THIS NON-NOTABLE PAGE...WHY MUST WE KEEP REHASHING THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Batman2005 10:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the obvious consensus is to keep. --24.154.173.243 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing obvious is that you're out of your mind, there are nearly DOUBLE the amount of deletes than keeps, and the majority of the keeps cite the fact that there is other crap that is non-notable on wikipedia, so why not add more.Batman2005 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to close secondedEnough already with this runaround. Close the deletion debate and chose the victor already. --

293.xx.xxx.xx 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; fully contained in the massacre page; not notable enough to break out on her own --Mhking 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Subject has fully met the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Thus, it would be a violation of WP policy to delete this article. Editors wishing to have a different policy with respect to subjects such as this need to seek a change to WP policy first before trying to apply such a policy change to an AfD. -AVB 2723 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable by relation to the VTEC massacre. I'm a little late voting, but finally My VTEC just kicked in, yo! SakotGrimshine 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; she's not notable at all. How is she notable? She didn't do anything meaningful and didn't even die meaningfully; she is, was, and forever will be no one, because she didn't do anything notable. Being killed in a shooting is NOT grounds for a Wikipedia article. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a memorial, as per its relevant policies. Titanium Dragon 23:53, 22 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/Emily_J._Hilscher&oldid=1165048595"