Talk:Ryan C. Clark

Discussion regarding merge suggestion

• No merge at this time - This man may have played a very key role in the events that day, based on early news reports. If after continued reporting, he becomes non-notable, then perhaps, consideration should be given to deleting this article.--76.202.59.116 08:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• No, let this guy have his own article for now. This young man, who wasn't notable yet 24 hours ago, did seem to have shown some now-lost promise to earn notability in some other way. It would appear that he stepped forward to intervene to protect a younger student to which he, a senior, was the resident adviser. If this is so, and we have every indication it is, he did the right thing, even though it cost him his life. On a day with so little good to reach for in their state of loss and confusion, the students (and a lot of the rest of us) deserve to have him to admire. I strongly think he is notable as of today. Don't misread me, please. I do NOT think this means that each victim is automatically notable for their own article. However, I have to add that I truly wish those who are forever trying to merge or delete the work of others would focus more on adding quality content to Wikipedia of their own, and verifying or clarifying facts and references, instead of trying to drastically change someone else's work just to suit a structure of personal preference. But, if we must, let us throw snowballs somewhere else folks, and not here. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• NO, just because he was not notable before but he is now. He another guy died in a shooting I am sure he would have a article. At this time, do not merge this article. What sick game are you playing? 67.36.86.212 09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• No Too many victims to put this much data about each one in the main artile. WAS 4.250 09:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge proposal withdrawn. Thanks, folks.--Chaser - T 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Any merger should be to a new article on victims, as in List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, rather than back into main Virginia Tech massacre article. As with Columbine, victims will be assessed for notability one at a time. They may later get their own articles. Josh a brewer 14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

Past situations have shown that on Wikipedia people are usually not notable just for being the victim in a crime. We also shouldn't have an article just because this person may be notable in the context of what happened. If notability can not be established now, any important information should be merged back into the parent article and this one removed. --StuffOfInterest 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Crime victims are not notable by themselves. This article needs to be merged into the Virginia Tech massacre page. --74.139.220.180 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Being a victim of crime is not notable in itself. Please merge this entry. --72.202.150.92 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Bronks 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. R.I.P. Dothisthing 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Obituary

Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is it an obituary. While it remains unclear whether he can be defined as notable (for the record I feel this article should remain independent until we know everything that we're going to know about what happened), a lot of this article feels rather unnecessary and reads something like an obituary or a eulogy. While I'm very sympathetic and sad about the events at VT, I can't imagine that this fits within wikipedia's guidelines (though I am not sure). Could someone clarify for me or offer another opinion? Ennuified 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't keep an article around just because we think the subject may become notable. If they are not already, it shouldn't be here. --StuffOfInterest 12:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this person becomes noteable because of his alleged heroism, then we can have an article then. Not now... Nil Einne 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just have an article for all of the victims, rather then a seperate one for each victim, or trying to cram every victim into the main article? Rebby 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Once the parent article reaches an excessive size then the content should be split off into a "Victims of the ..." article. Child articles don't need to be created in anticipation of the split. --StuffOfInterest 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We probably will end up with at least an article which is a list of victims, as per comments on Talk: Virginia Tech massacre. At this point, Ryan Clark is not notable because he was a victim, but because he took action to protect a fellow student as this first started happening, actions described as heroic by credible media sources. At least for now, he seems notable. See next thread. Vaoverland 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Current consensus

There is a current majority consensus here and on the massacre talk page NOT TO MERTGE now, although many of us have reservations that doing so in the future may ultimately be appropriate. Charging the entire article to a redirect anyway is a cheap shot at best. I am requesting that anyone wanting to participate along these lines read the discussion on the Talk:Virginia Tech Massacre page under Ryan C. White, post additional there comments, and please try not to take unilateral actions as has been happening this morning.

Thank you. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While the unilateral sctions were inappropriate, I fail to see this consensus you speak of. Indeed many contributors have suggested this article should be merged until such time it's clearly establish this person is noteable. For the professors, they may be independently notable and as such, several contributors including me have suggested we hold off on merging them until this is established Nil Einne 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Texas shootings: a precedent?

The victims of Charles Whitman are listed on a single page: List of Charles Whitman's victims. (161.184.118.144 14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Upper Class?

He was an upper class student...

I think this phrase need clarifing for an international audience, since in British English, that means that he came from an Upper Class background (or could be regarded as Upper Class in and of himself). I.e, posh, rich, socially privileged, etc. While I suspect it is attempting to reference to where within the year structure of the Uni he was studying. --Myfanwy 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ok then call it an UPPERCLASSMAN. both mean the same thing, or just call him a junior, senior, grad student, this will eliminate the barrier we have here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.229.242 (talk)

Indeed, I reckon "upper class student" be rephrased for clarity, but I know so little about this event, as shocking as that may sound. I am sorry. (I did, however, add the UnsignedIP template for 71.61.229.242.) Qwerty (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)