The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
Does this even meet the bare minimum nobility standards on wikipedia? Why is it necessary to create these pages of obscure actors in this movement who have had little to no air time compared to the three main founders? There needs to be a wait and see approach until April or the start of May before we add more pointless articles that will die in a few months.100.33.114.169 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corin is impressive as an organizer of the Tallahassee student protest -- only six days after Parkland. She's consistently referred to as a leader of the group. There are lots of references. Actors? You really used that word? Nope, they're real people who survived a massacre, and are fighting back, and they're getting serious attention in serious media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer, the word "actor" has more than one meaning. In this context, what the IP is saying is that she has played a small role in the movement by comparison to Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg. I don't know whether or not that's true, but that's not really the point I'm making. It does not mean "crisis actor" as used by... Alex Jones? was it? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again your personal opinion on these students is not relevant to the conversation. Clearly you have a vested interest in creating all these articles yourself. These are inappropriate at this time and should be redirected to the main article to avoid creating dozens of separate stubs for no reason. You know this yet you only create this article when a single magazine cover featuring two obscure students out the three main leaders appeared today. Hence you are letting the daily news cycle influence what meets nobility standards on any given day. Waiting until a few weeks pass should not be that difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.114.169 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About the "personal vested interest" part. Nope. I've never taken money from any of my hundreds and hundreds of Wikipedia articles I've created. And I've written about all types of people from all over the political spectrum. What motivates me is getting readers -- I'm always trying to guess what things will get the most attention, and then write what I think will get read, and check the pageviews. And my "personal opinion on these students" is not relevant -- it's what the sources are saying, not me (although my personal opinion is that I do, indeed, admire these people for their refusal not to be victimized and to tell the truth -- but this opinion is left out of these articles.) Let me ask you: what bothers you about these articles? Is it that these people have become notable (and they are) and people like us Wikipedians are not? My hunch is that all of them would, without a second thought, prefer that the shooting had never happened, that they were not forced to become activists, that their friends would still be alive, that they live in a world without the daily anxiety of being shot by gun-toting nutcases. Last, if I didn't write these articles, somebody else would have done so, sooner or later. These people are highly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we wait to create an article at a later time when sufficient sourcing exists to create an article now? I don't have a vested interest. I think the person warrants a biographical article based on the activities she is involved in which are covered by journalistic sources. Bus stop (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the notability of this person can largely be said about the other Never Again kids (wait, she organized a bus trip and posted a YouTube video!) Almost all coverage of these kids is solely in relation to Never Again. I think it would be preferable to cover the students proportionally in a single article, rather than reduce Wikipedia to a virtual gossip magazine. Empty phrases like "It left her in a state of shock but also inspired her to do something" belongs in Teen Vogue, not a dispassionate encyclopedia of facts. We should digest and summarize news, not regurgitate it. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, the students are individuals, and each brings a particular personality to the discussion. That's why each one easily meets Wikipedia's standards of notability as well as the WP:GNG. The current format (separate articles plus one article for Never Again MSD) works well (there are differences among them, varying skillsets, and emphases in speeches -- in future they will be speaking as individuals in all likelihood). Trying to futz with the current format will likely yield a major backlash.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
