Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology shooting

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... devloping siutuion using data from MIT website for time reasons ---Joseph A. Rinaldi (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Refs to be added/used

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/cambridge-gunshots/index.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/18/mit-police-officer-hit-gunfire-cambridge-police-dispatcher-says/4UeCClOVeLr8PHLvDa99zK/story.html

Risker (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/explosives-detonated-in-massachusetts-standoff.html is the NY Times story on Watertown. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/mit_cop_killed_suspects_chased_in_watertown_marathon_link_probed Boston Herald is stating that an MTBA officer was wounded. Location (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspects from the Boston Marathon bombings?

If so, a standalone page or merge?[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave it until it settles. It may actually need to be merged in to a section on the MIT article, which links to the Boston bombers. Steven Walling • talk 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Very unclear. Lead of Boston.com article links to bombers but body says no link. Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Other sources like NYT are not drawing a link yet as far as I can see. Steven Walling • talk 06:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The line the NYT is using is "There was speculation that the two incidents were linked but, amid the chaos early Friday morning, there was no confirmation of that. The F.B.I. released new images of the men early Friday as part of a campaign to try and identify them." Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I agree that it's way too early to draw any conclusions but the notability (event) of this event may be in question if it's not directly related to the Boston bombings. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hold off on both the notability and the merger for now. If it's going to be merged in it needs to be done deliberately anyway. Use this article for new information as to this incident. It likely will be moved in, if applicable, as a section en mass anyway, so just add good reliable information here, and worry about merger later. If there's no merger, then do the AfD nom and it will play out, but nobody can know right now; the situation's still very active. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already moved it to the other article, and I am editing there for new things. Currently, there is chatter on the police channels that they have possibly found the other suspect in Watertown, and I think duplicating this information might lead to confusion until it is all sorted out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We can always split it out again if needs be. Let's quit dickering over the merge and try to keep up with the sources.Steven Walling • talk 07:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the merge will be easy if that's what ends up happening. And if not, then it's easier to deal with at AfD anyway. Little downside to waiting in this instance. There will undoubtedly be a press conference in the daylight and that should answer a lot of questions. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)