Jump to content

Talk:Victoria Leigh Soto/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Rename

Please rename this to the "Killing of Victoria Leigh Soto" that is the only way the subject becomes notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted redirect

I have reverted the redirect per WP:IAR, WP:POLL, WP:VOTE, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, WP:NOTPAPER, and precedents such as Rachel Scott and William David Sanders. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least point it to the section of the article that mentions her as opposed to just a random redirect to the entire article? Victoria Leigh Soto --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Two issues: First I'm confused by the box at the top of the page saying that the result of the deletion discussion was "redirect." The discussion is ongoing. Second, I'm concerned by reliance at crucial points in this article on the Huffington Post news aggregation site. We can do better than that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement at the top (i.e., that the result of the deletion discussion was "redirect") refers to the first AfD discussion – the one that was closed prematurely. It does not refer to the current/ongoing AfD disucssion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that point, Joseph. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed removed the tag since WP:DRV reopened the AfD and therefore does not constitute an "old" AfD. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect proposal?

As the majority of contributors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto favoured redirection, should a further discussion of that outcome be commenced? WWGB (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the matter should be discussed. Shearonink (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion should be held and a consensus be reached before any further actions.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: To be honest I think it would be best if we leave it as it is, and either reopen a discussion for redirect in a few months or nominated it once again for AfD in a few months. If you reopen a redirect discussion at this time the outcome will probably be the same with no consensus being reached. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I also agree with Ahnoneemoos. In every AfD that I have seen in where a consensus was not reached the article has always remained as is. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I disagree. Based on the discussion at AFD, redirect actually would have been appropriate closure as per WP:PRESERVE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the appropriate closure should have been a redirect then bring it up to WP:DRV. I fail to see what exactly from WP:PRESERVE applies here. Could you please post the specific excerpts you are referring to and explain to me how do they apply here as if I were a 5 year old?
You should also realize that majority votes are irrelevant in Wikipedia per WP:VOTE. For your convenience, here's the excerpt:
"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care."
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This will never be deleted - at minimum, the name should be redirected to the shooting page - ergo this never can be taken to AFD again (as you can't discuss a motion to redirect there).
That said, given that the closer at AFD here said that the arguments were strong for a redirect, that's what we should go with until the requirements for VICTIM are met (remember, we need enduring coverage of Soto's role in protecting the children, which hasn't happened.) --MASEM (t) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Masem. I favored keeping the article, but there are still strong reasons to redirect. I don't think redirecting this would be a tragedy. However, I still am not convinced that it should happen, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the application of policy in this area. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: - I agree with Ahnoneemoos we should wait a few months if at all to discuss redirect/AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: - I also agree with Ahnoneemoos. Redirection may eventually be the right idea, but I see no harm in allowing this article to remain for a while. Coretheapple (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: - I also agree with Ahnoneemoos. However, I believe that eventually the article will remain as is. John Harkins, the mayor of Stratford, Conn. has proposed to name a school after Soto Connecticut mayor proposes naming school after newtown massacre victim. The proposal will go before the city counsel this January 14th and according to the media it will be approved. A fundraiser will be established to create a statue of Soto. A Scholarship is named after her, plus she has received international news coverage. I believe that she will meet all the notability criteria established by Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm thoroughly confused about why the AfD was closed as no consensus while the closing admin at the same time acknowledged a strong trend favoring a redirect. Since when is "redirect" not a legitimate outcome of an AfD? "Sure, there's a consensus to redirect here, but you'll have to have this whole discussion again on the talk page." doesn't seem like a very helpful approach to me. --Conti|✉ 13:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: - The whole process was a mess from the beginning, however at the end the following explains a lot "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." It is apparent that the sources indicate that the subject will meet the requirements of Wikipedia's notability policy and that there is a valid reason for the article to stay. Even here in the "talk Page', it doesn't matter if we state that the article should or should not be redirected. What really matters and what should determine the fate of the article is if the article is within the requirements of policy. That is why User: Ahnoneemoos suggestion that the article remain "as is" for a few months is an excellent one. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:VICTIM: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Saying that there is only one policy that supports your side of the argument and none that contradicts it is misleading at best. --Conti|✉ 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
But right underneath that is an exception: An article is warranted if "The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." It's not cut-and-dried, and Soto received much publicity. In fact, the article underplays her significance by attributing her fame to Fox. That's not correct. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Conti, you appear to be saying that you believe this person is, in fact, known only in connection with a criminal event. Is that your position? If so, then I have to disagree with you for this reason: the children that perished are wp:victims known only in connection with (or, we could substitute here, "notorious only as a result of") a criminal event, but not so with Victoria. We need to start by defining what we mean by "in connection with", and Coretheapple's note above addresses that a bit by pointing to a notability guidleine that uses ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE to help editors "steer that boat". We also need to start by defining what is mean by having "a large role...", because then we need to ask, how large is "large"? I can understand if, even after checking out this comparison of the children she tried to save, you (and others) still disagree, possibly on the basis that putting her life on the line for her students does not rise to the level of notoriety needed to have her own article, but this is a matter of judgement, of course, because what some editors may consider notorious, may not be notorious for other editors. This, of course, is part of the reason we are having this debate to begin with. To me, the fact that she -her name- has been singled out so many times in media articles, the fact there is a scholarship named after her, and that there are proposals to name roads and schools after her, tells me that she (unlike most of the other victims of that shooting) IS already notorious, and thus deserving of her own article.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
That's a perfectly fine argument. I was merely pointing out that claiming that policy is on your side, as Tony did, and that therefore no further discussion is required is, well, flat-out wrong. As for the argument itself, I'm not agreeing with you about the definition of "in connection with". It's a pretty simple, straightforward definition, and the subject of this article is known only in connection to the crime that happened (she would not have an article otherwise). The definition of "a large role" is not as clear, and that's why we need to have these discussions, instead of shutting them down claiming "Policy is on my side so you're all wrong". The more important point for me would be the requirement of "enduring coverage". It's extremely questionable whether there will be enduring coverage here, and I don't like the idea of keeping this and having this discussion again in a few months, because that would introduce the concept of "notable until proven otherwise". Nope, it's the other way around. Besides, it just makes me scratch my head that we're having this discussion while no one would even consider for one second to have an article on the shooter, even though every single argument made here is way more valid for him. It's an odd double standard. --Conti|✉ 21:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Conti, IMO Soto is not known -only- for having been a victim of a criminal event. Nowhere have I read that victims of criminal events must have been notable -before- the event occurred in order to pass the WP:NOTABILITY test. To me she is known for having been the victim of a shooting -and also- for having shielded the children from the shooter (so that some of her children -did- escape), -and- for having a scholarship, a roadway, and a school named after her. Granted, these last 3 are all "in connection with the criminal event", however, what I am saying is that, IMO, WP:VICTIM is meant for those that were victims ***and nothing else,*** while WP:NOTABLE (of which, of course, WP:VICTIM is a part) is meant for those that were Popes, POTUSes, etc., etc., etc., -and also- for heroes who, like Soto, also ***happened to be*** victims. That is, a hero doesn't have to be a hero -before- she dies in connection with a criminal event: It is, IMO, admissible under WP:NOTABLE AND WP:VICTIM that the person was made into a hero/notable as a result of a criminal event. It is a subtle difference and I hope I helped get the point across: That I am not yet convinced by anyone contributing to this discussion here so far that WP:VICTIM was meant to exclude from the encyclopedia cases like Soto's and that, therefore, she passess the WP:NOTABILITY test. I know there are additional comments that have since popped up (below) regarding this particular twist; just wanted to qualify my previous comment for clarity. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I get your point, though I have to admit that this is the first time that I have seen this kind of interpretation of WP:VICTIM, and I do not agree with it. All the things you mention are a direct result of her being a part of the shooting, and so I do not agree that we could reasonable argue that they are separate cases of notability. But, again, all these arguments are just as true for the shooter and numerous other victims, and I am still wondering why none of you argue to have articles about them. --Conti|✉ 21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
My *lack of argument* supporting the creation of articles on the shooter and on some of the other victims should not be taken as a reflection of favoritism for Soto (insofar as article creation is concerned) over the shooter or over some of the other victims. If you are -asking- me if I would support such other additional articles as well, my answer is "Yes"; and I also think that with time such articles will be built (though probably not by myself - I am too busy elsewhere). Below the argument "level", however, my *lack of comment* regarding the creation of articles about the shooter and about some of the other victims, Conti, is simply because -this- discussion is not about the shooter nor the other victims, but about Soto. I am going by WP:OTHERSTUFF. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
In that case I can at least appreciate the consistency of your opinion. :) I still disagree with it, but there's not a whole lot to say that hasn't been said already. We interpret policy and guidelines in different ways, and I don't think either of us is going to change their mind any time soon, so I'll leave it at that. --Conti|✉ 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I see no potential in this article whatsoever to improve over time unless more comes out showing notability other than her death, Victoria will just be known for this one thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

question mark Suggestion. I think that the problem here is not wether Soto is notable or not, nor wether she will be. The problem is that WP:VICTIM fails us because the policy is too vague, too general, too broad, and subject to interpretation. First of all, WP:BLP1E does not apply to Soto because she is dead, but then WP:VICTIM states that it has to be consistent with that policy. So which one is it? Does it apply or does it not apply? Second, what does "consistent" mean? What does it mean to have a "large role"? What does "persistent coverage" mean? What does "significant attention" mean? So, instead of focusing on Soto let's focus on the damn policy and fix it once and for all.

Here's what I propose:

If the victim has received coverage in an exclusive manner by at least two reliable sources the victim is considered notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia.

That would be so specific that it won't be subject to interpretation and discussions like this won't happen ever again.

Let's take this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If the above change were enacted that would seem to mean that Soto's fellow Sandy Hook educator-heroes would qualify for WP articles...it would also probably mean that every one of the children who died would qualify for separate standalone articles as well. Shearonink (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I agree that it is a good idea to clarify the vague policy that applies here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As I posted above, if the references were set by guideline to a specific number from reliable sources, then more people who died in a newsworthy way will qualify. For discussion's sake, let's double the required number to 6... everyone who died at Sandy Hook will still probably qualify. I'm not saying this is bad or good or whatever....just that all of them - Soto, Principal Dawn Hochsprung, School Psychologist Mary Sherlach, Teacher's Aide Anne Marie Murphy, Therapist Rachel D'Avino, Adam Lanza, Nancy Lanza, and the 20 murdered children - would also seemingly have enough references for Wikipedia articles if WP:VICTIM were altered in this way. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Shear, were the other victims covered exclusively by at least two reliable sources? Can you provide references for that? I need to examine it further if that's the case. We just need to get rid of this vagueness. Either by my proposal or something else. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that all of the adults at least have enough sources to have standalone articles as well. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

question mark Suggestion - Or how about:

If the victim has received coverage in an exclusive manner in various reliable sources and has recieved public recognitions in which the victim will always be remembered, the victim is considered notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia.

As I have predicted in the past, a school will most be likely named after her and it is apparent that the sources indicate that the subject will meet the requirements of Wikipedia's notability policy and therefore there is a valid reason for the article to stay. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Once a public entity, such as a building/ship/park, is named for a deceased or living person, that would seem to indicate notability, but there are also lasting scholarships/funds being named/endowed for various other people who died at Sandy Hook. Shearonink (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that would work out with WP:NPOV. As an encyclopedia, we should not care whether someone did something good or bad. --Conti|✉ 20:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning. Folks, lets take any suggestions or comments you have regarding WP:VICTIM to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). There's already a discussion there on this matter and your feedback, whatever it may be, is always welcomed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The direct link to the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) is Fixing WP:VICTIM once and for all. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No redirect. The "redirect" discussion was closed with no consensus for redirect. This article clearly meets the WP:NOTABILITY test, as noted by User:Mercy and many others. Accordingly, I agree with Tony the Marine and User: Ahnoneemoos, that the article should remain "as is" for a few months. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
What redirect discussion? There was an AfD discussion with a rough consensus to redirect, but apparently AfDs don't get closed as "redirect" these days any longer, so the entire discussion was declared "no consensus" and now we have the same discussion all over again. --Conti|✉ 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
No redirect With the naming of a school, streets, parks, and collection of donations for a statue in the works, I think it's time to move on to more constructive contributions to WP. Pr4ever (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 Comment: - Victoria Leigh Soto was not merely a "victim." She engaged in direct, meaningful action which cost her life and saved many others. As such, she is much closer to the textbook definition of hero or heroine, than mere victim. A teacher who takes a bullet for her students, and actually saves several of them, is a great deal more than just a victim. In addition, even if Victoria Leigh Soto were only a "victim" (which she is not), this article would stand on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. Victoria Leigh Soto, as per WP:VICTIM, played a large role in a historical event that was well-documented. In addition, as per WP:VICTIM, her role has been covered in an exclusive manner by many reliable news sources (in the U.S., throughout Latin America, and in Europe) in the context of a single event.
Finally, we have clear precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. The Sanders and the Bishop articles, have both been in Wikipedia for over five years. To keep them and not Victoria Leigh Soto, would be a glaring double standard. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
All of the adults who died at Sandy Hook were not merely "victims" either, they all engaged in direct, meaningful action that cost them their lives and that saved others. Did the Principal and the School Psychologist have to leave that meeting and charge the shooter? Did Dawn Hochsprung have to turn on the PA system? Did any of the murdered women have to stay in that building? They all could have chosen to leave but they did not. Plus, as I posted in another section below, I know that some of them are having ongoing concerns, such as scholarships, named after them. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
No redirect - Latest news. The Stratford Town Council approved the naming of a new school in her honor:[1]. Therefore, I approve the comments made by User:Nelsondenis248 and User:Pr4ever. Soto has received international coverage and has been recognized for her bravery. To state otherwise would be absurd. If we are not going to use our common sense then the following people and others like them, who became notable as a result of a single event: Lucian Adams, Beauford T. Anderson, Richard B. Anderson, Sylvester Antolak, Richard N. Antrim, and Thomas E. Atkins should have their articles redirected to the article of World War II or to the Medal of Honor article. I mean they were also victims of a single event. How about the Rosa Parks article? She was a victim of a single event, she sat in the front of a bus, and her incident was used by those promoting the Civil Rights Movement in the USA? Why not redirect her article to the article of such movement? Tony the Marine (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Derek Jeter phone call

User:WWGB asks "why is a single phone call notable?" My answer to that question is quite simple. Derek Jeter is considered, by those who follow the game, to be amongst the greatest baseball players. He is also considered a future candidate for the Baseball Hall of Fame which in itself makes him notable (he has a Wiki article). Not only is he a member of the New York Yankees, he is also the captain of the organization. Of course single phone calls are not notable, but the fact that Jeter is notable and that his phone call, expressing his condolences, was considered important enough to be covered by the national media, speaks for itself. That is why it is included in the article. That is my opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That the phone call was considered "important" by the national media probably says a whole lot about said media. They simply exploit even the tiniest detail of tragedies like this, because it gets them viewers (and clicks). We shouldn't follow that example and return to being an encyclopedia. --Conti|✉ 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. It could also have been a PR publicity stunt by the Yankees. He could have presented himself in the funeral. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It could have been a genuine action of compassion, too, and it's entirely possible that he did not want anyone to know this. Either way, it's not really a noteworthy event, all things considered. At best, it's a private phone call that has no business being in an encyclopedia, at worst it's a PR stunt.. which has no business being in an encyclopedia, either. --Conti|✉ 20:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A School Named after Victoria Soto

As Tony the Marine just noted, a school will be named after Victoria Soto in Stratford, Connecticut. The Stratford Town Council vote occurred today (Monday, January 14).

In just a few hours, the news traveled all over the United States. Here are just a few of the reports from NBC News [2], ABC News [3], MSNBC [4], CBS New York [5], the Huffington Post [6], USA Today [7],the Stamford Advocate [8] the Hartford Courant [9], the Global Post [10], and the Connecticut Post [11].

They named a SCHOOL after her, to nationwide press coverage. Does anyone still wish to argue about the notability of this woman? Nelsondenis248 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, would any of you please create Anne Marie Murphy? I'm still puzzled how people can so vehemently defend the existence of this article while not caring one bit about other heroes of this tragedy. --Conti|✉ 10:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Has there been coverage of Ms. Murphy comparable to what has been given to Ms. Soto? If so, then she definitely warrants an article. It is indisputable that Victoria Soto has emerged almost as a symbol of the tragedy. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, now that you mention it, there has been plenty of coverage for the other adults who were killed - Principal Dawn Hochsprung, School Psychologist Mary Sherlach, Teacher Anne Marie Murphy, Substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau and Therapist Rachel D'Avino - to possibly have standalone articles as well. In addition to many reliable sources that are about these women and their careers, I seem to remember, the last time I looked, that many of them are having scholarships named after them....there might even be more ongoing concerns named for them by now. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
information Note: Dawn Hochsprung will need to be worked at the redirect someone created already on Dec 14. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
information Note: Mary Sherlach will need to be worked at the redirect someone created already on Dec 14. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
information Note: Lauren Rousseau will need to be worked at the redirect someone created already on Dec 15. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
information Note: work on Rachel D'Avino here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rachel D'Avino. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 Doing... Sure, give me reliable sources and I will create their articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 Partly done. Develop the article here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Marie Murphy (teacher). That way everyone can contribute to it before submitting it so that it doesn't go through an AfD process. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I sympathize with Conti's frustation above ("For consistency's sake...") and Shearonink's reaction with his list of the other SHES adult shooting victims that have also received widespread news coverage, and I am asking myself, Could it be that, as a precendent-setter, -this- article is the one taking on all the blows for the future articles about the other SHES victims? Call me an analysis freak, an Original Researcher or what have you, but this seems like a fairly reasonable explanation for many of the objections I have seen so far to keeping this article despite the overwhelming evidence to the fact that, IMO anyway, she has all the characteristics of being notable. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I throw my two cents in here First I don't oppose this article but may someone explain me where is the Benchmark of notability? Just for comparison Jessica "redfield" Ghawi a Victim of the Aurora Theater Shooting was also all over the news more then any other Victim of that Tragedy the AT&T center renamed their press box to honor her [1] the Jessica Redfield Foundation has been founded The Metro state has Honored her a Posthumus Bachelor Degree... etc but yet her Article was AFD'ed and thrown out I don't see that a renaming of a School add's no more weight to the notability of Ms.Soto also she is only notable by a Single incident (WP:BLP?) so someone might explain what makes her special in regard of the other Victims at all? thanks Fox2k11 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't get your Point (what has rosa parks to do with a Victim of a shooting?) also there are other Victims of that Tragedy who tried to save them and ultimately sacrificed their life's who are their articles?? but I won't further on this 'cuz It seems you took my posting some sort of personal?! And i was just asking some questions for understanding neither do i want an argue on this! Fox2k11 (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I really didn't take it personally. I guess that, depending of the circumstances, the actions of some people more notable then others, I don't know. Of course Rosa Parks has nothing to do with the shooting. You just happened to mention that Soto was only notable by a single incident and I gave you an example of someone who became notable by a single incident, that's all. It is stated above that whoever wants to create an article for any of the other victims are more then welcomed to do so. There is no argument at all, you are an editor whom seems to be a very pleasant person to me. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
ok =) I only mentioned it because of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event which was more then once mentioned on the talk page of the Aurora Shooting but nevermind All due respect to Ms.Soto and the other Victims! Fox2k11 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I added some text and sources to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rachel_D'Avino as a start but when it becomes to write Articles I'm still a lousy novice! Fox2k11 (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jillian Soto

Does anyone think it might, at some point, become appropriate to create a page for Jillian Soto and/or the photograph taken of her? It has been reproduced around the world, and seems to have become the defining symbol of the event. I'm thinking of the precedents we have with Mary Ann Vecchio and Phan Thi Kim Phuc? Is there a policy for notable photographs or people famous because they were in a famous photograph?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I Presume you mean This Photo? frankly Never have seen an Article about a Photo but go ahead and create it maybe this is a Creative precedent!? --Fox2k11 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we merge this article with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was "Keep as is" Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

Neither article is extremely long and Soto's only claim to fame was that she gave her life to save six schoolchildren, a WP:ONEEVENT thing (i.e. if she did not die in the shooting or was not at school that day, we would not have an article on her because we would not know her at all). The only sections that need to be added to the school shooting article are "Funeral" and "Legacy." The paragraph in "Death" already exists in the "Shootings" section and no one really cares about her early life being that it has nothing to do with her notability (would it have mattered if she never went to college, was born in another country and immigrated here at a young age, or spend her childhood in a homeless shelter?). The "See Also" is also irrelevant for the same reason (would it have mattered if she was black, Asian, Egyptian, Colombian, or an alien from another planet?). Being nominated for the Presidential Citizens Medal alone is not enough for claim notability since we have scores of other people who have won that award and we do not have articles on them. This is why I think it is best to merge this article with the shooting article and I would have done that boldy had it not been for the recent AfD that ended in No Consensus. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Soto satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:VICTIM easily. She has received extensive coverage in WP:RELIABLESOURCES that have covered her as an individual while being the focus of said coverage. WP:PSEUDO is an essay, not a policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
See also WP:OTHERSTUFF, this isnt about Columbine this is about Sandy Hook. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay not a policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Soto satisfies both WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM easily as she has received significant coverage in WP:RELIABLESOURCES as an individual and as the focus of said coverage. Per both WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM for your convenience:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

Finally, WP:EFFECT applies to events, not to people.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - Here we go again [12]. How many times must we put up with this non sense? The Stratford Town Council approved the naming of a new school in her honor:[13]. Soto has received international coverage and has been recognized for her bravery. To state otherwise would be absurd. If we are not going to use our common sense then the following people and others like them, who became notable as a result of a single event: Lucian Adams, Beauford T. Anderson, Richard B. Anderson, Sylvester Antolak, Richard N. Antrim, and Thomas E. Atkins should have their articles redirected to the article of World War II or to the Medal of Honor article. I mean they were also victims of a single event. How about the Rosa Parks article? She was a victim of a single event, she sat in the front of a bus, and her incident was used by those promoting the Civil Rights Movement in the USA? Why not redirect her article to the article of such movement? Soto was awarded the Presidential Citrizens Medal. Let's knock it off already, this issue has been brought up about five times now. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as is -In the first go-around of this already stale debate, virtually everything that had not yet happened to justify a separate article has now happened. Multiple national media and media in several states and territories have written articles about her. A school will bear her name in Connecticut. A scholarship fund has been established. The city of Bayamón, in a territory other than her state of residence, will honor her, naming a public landmark in her honor. And today, the President has posthumously bestowed upon her our nation's second highest civilian honor, the Presidential Citizens Medal. Pr4ever (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. I find it an INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE and a WASTE OF PEOPLE'S TIME that this issue should be re-introduced after it has been FULLY DISCUSSED AD NAUSEUM. If you are TOO LAZY to read the archived discussion before WASTING EVERYONE’S TIME AGAIN, We'll summarize it for you in a nutshell.
1) Victoria Leigh Soto was not merely a "victim." She engaged in direct, meaningful action which cost her life and saved many others. As such, she is much closer to the textbook definition of hero or heroine, than mere victim. A teacher who takes a bullet for her students, and actually saves several of them, is a great deal more than just a victim.
2) In addition, even if Victoria Leigh Soto were only a "victim" (which she is not), this article would stand on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. Victoria Leigh Soto, as per WP:VICTIM, played a large role in a historical event that was well-documented. In addition, as per WP:VICTIM, her role has been covered in an exclusive manner by many reliable sources in the context of a single event.
3) Finally, we have clear precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. The Sanders and the Bishop articles, have both been in Wikipedia for over five years. To keep them and not Victoria Leigh Soto, would be a glaring double standard.
4) As far as notability, when they NAMED A SCHOOL after Victoria Leigh Soto the news traveled all over the United States.
Here are just a few of the reports from NBC News [14], ABC News[15], MSNBC [16], CBS New York [17], the Huffington Post [18],
USA Today [19],the Stamford Advocate [20],the Hartford Courant [21], the Global Post [22], and the Connecticut Post [23].
5) They named a SCHOOL after her, for her heroism, to nationwide press coverage. Does anyone still wish to argue about the notability of this woman? Yet again? For the umpteenth time? Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. The event continues to reverberate in the news, and Ms. Soto's role has not diminished. As I said last time, this can be revisited at some point in the future. It's too soon to reevaluate. Coretheapple (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. As you indicated Legendary Ranger, this matter was recently discussed HERE and the result was No consensus. That discussion is just 30 days young, as such bringing up this matter again now is, well, premature. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Keep as is. I thought we had this sorted out on the AFD that this article has it's right to exist? and now we have a Merge discussion? Seriously??? --> I Oppose this... -- Fox2k11 (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep (no merge). There's plenty of information that doesn't really fit in at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. So the question becomes, is this person notable? The fact that all this information about her life can be sourced from WP:RS, the ongoing memorials, and her name in the public consciousness - I say yes. As others have said, there's plenty of precedent for victims of massacres/victims of disasters, even if they weren't notable beforehand. Another example is Todd Beamer - like Soto, solely famous for his heroic death, but famous enough to be WP-notable. Adpete (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Amendment to comment made by Nelsondenis248 . He Noted that she gained International Notability I Add some news from germany to his Comment (in german sorry) to support his comment... Ref 1 Ref 2 Ref 3 and this goes on and on but i Think 3 Ref's are plenty! --Fox2k11 (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP AS IS -Enough is enough. The subject is notable beyond doubt. Let's stop the belittling of the subject already by requesting an unwarranted redirect. Antonio Martin (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on some of the recent discussions I've seen here, whether or not we merge or keep the article, there is going to be controversy. If we keep it separate, people are going to fight over creating articles for the other sandy hook victims, saying that if one deserves an article, so should the rest (not true btw). If we merge, people will fight over her notability due to her post humorous recognition, which I'm not sure is enough to merit an article, so pick your poison. Also, I removed the "see also" section because seriously, no one gives two s**** about her race or ethnicity and neither list even mentions her. 69.122.93.238 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep (no merge) - I see no reason for this to be merged into the other article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge - She is notable enough to have an article by herself and doesn't need to be merged. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perhaps the above discussion can be "hidden"? I've seen it done but am not sure how. I don't think it's time to archive just yet, and if it is archived the effect may be counteproductive. That is, people may bring up merger again, not seeing the notice at the top and not knowing it was just defeated. Coretheapple (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"North Parade"

I notice that an article in the local newspaper says that the street renaming was to be "North Parade," but editors change this to "North Avenue Street." That name is mentioned several times in the local article. But on Google Maps there is no "North Parade." What's the best course here? There is a lot of reversion back and forth but I think it needs to be resolved in discussion here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction: The article says Stratford, not Stamford. There IS a North Parade in Stratford and not a "North Avenue Street" in that town. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there is a tendency to disbelieve editors who are not logged in "IP" editors, but sometimes they are right. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I changed my mind. Here's why. First I went back to the source, which has a detailed discussion on the name of the street. I think that's worthy of trust more than Google Maps, which might just have slapped on "Street." Secondly, Google Maps Streetview shows the street sign as "NORTH PARADE" with "St." or "Street" omitted. So I reverted back. Yes, I know Google has lots of "North Parade Streets," but those are casual references and the only source that has discussed the issue of the street name specifically omits "Street." So I think I've gone with that. I notice also that the petition for the name change, while probably not a reliable source per se, omits "street." Lastly, it occurred to me that a school website would be careful about such things, so maybe it is dispositive after all. Schools are careful about grammar and usage. Besides, it is the only building on the street. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP Edits

I watched the ip editing for a while now and the IP is now blocked for 31 hrs because the former edits became disruptive and also vandalizing because of Content removal in the infobox have a look on the ip when the block expires! --Fox2k11 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Vicki's Playground (done)

The playground in her name in the Long Brook Park in Stratford, CT has been finished... should it be mentioned in the article? it was posted on facebook also here is a second source http://www.the-broad-side.com/see-the-good-in-a-sea-of-bad --Fox2k11 (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is in now. --88.130.81.67 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.ksat.com/news/San-Antonio-Rampage-honor-Colorado-theater-massacre-victim/-/478452/16980000/-/86suv4z/-/index.html
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto/Archive_1&oldid=1137296708"