Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:17, 23 April 2007.

Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

Matches the criteria. Very well referenced.Dalejenkins 13:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. No offense, but this is a little inappropriate, as the incident is still progressing (which doesn't satisfy the stable criterion) but it is also not a fully complete article and there is a lot of work and copyediting needed before it becomes featured material. It's definitely on its way, but right now, I say we hold off, and you possibly withdraw this nomination. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clearly does not meet the stable criterion. Further, because it is only 3 days after is is safe to assume that it is not comprehensive. From comments made in this section of the talk page and a leisurely glance at the article, I feel it also wouldn't meet 1a. In short, like Jared said, it's way too early to be even considering FA, let alone making a serious attempt at it. I'm sure that in the future, this will become one of our best articles (the number of references certainly suggests that). However, now is too soon. Harryboyles 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, utterly fails stable criteria and has no chance of winning. I'm not saying it's a bad article, in fact it may even be feature quality, but it is absolutely not ready to be featured yet. --Golbez 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose not stable due to the recent nature of the event. Also has a maintenance tag on it ("This article is becoming very long"). --W.marsh 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This article is changing extremely rapidly (1000's of edits per day).ike9898 15:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Clearly does not satisfy stability criterion. CloudNine 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close obviously unstable. (Not to mention the rest...) Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Maybe in a LONG time, when we actually know enough information to make this a great article WiiAlbanyGirl 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Nicely referenced, but it's obviously unstable. alphachimp 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd say speedy close, but I haven't previously voted in FA nominations and know very little about them. The article is very definitely unstable, the number of and its relationship with the accompanying subarticles is yet to be determined, and several sections are still in development. --Kizor 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone perhaps just delete this whole nomination? This article is very well sourced, and may someday reach a stability point that would make it a suitable FA. Or perhaps not deleting this, but not placing the {{facfailed}} on the talk page instead... There are enough boxes there to begin with, and this nom is clearly not going anywhere. Any thoughts? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close way too unstable, way too soon. Maybe in the future but there is way too much going on here right now to even consider giving it that little star.
  • Speedy close with no bias in the future, due to WP:SNOW (thanks to unstablity). -Halo 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I don't think the article is stable enough yet to meet the requirements Zehly 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as per the above reasons. Too soon. Still a breaking news story. Edits constantly being made, making it unstable right now, etc. Jeeny 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG Oppose Way too soon. This is still far too unstable. Funpika 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Too unstable right now, conflict over the name of the article, ect. Titanium Dragon 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry to say but I think we need to wait at least a month (4 weeks) or so until the media storm over this dies down. Booksworm Talk to me! 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is still developing with new reports and information. Until the news reports, and the police report has concluded, I don't believe that this should be an FA. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Oppose The events are still developing and the new sources are still unstable, but if this article has more pictures and it's nominated again in a week, I think it could possibly become featured. D4S 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Far too volatile right now. Maybe when the dust settles. --StuffOfInterest 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - the article is not stable. Information is still getting in about the motive of the crime. Real96 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Virginia_Tech_massacre/archive1&oldid=1138475015"