Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus - This is almost perfectly split 50/50 for keep vs redirect. As per the comment at the bottom, best to close this as snow close, no consensus and revisit later if needed and not to belabor this for a full week. Summary: both

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and Stephen Paddock will be standalone articles for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Stephen Paddock

Stephen Paddock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the biography for the suspect in the

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. An attempt was made to redirect to the main article on the event, was reverted, and so here we are. It's not quite an AfD, but it's not quite a merger, since the section on the individual in the main article is probably of equal or higher quality, and it's not clear that anything substantial in particular would need to be merged. Subject does not appear to be notable for anything other than this single event. GMGtalk 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Please take care that this discussion concerns material with implications for the
recently deceased and their living family members.
I don't believe this falls under those grounds. He is only notable for this event, as
WP:1E states is not viable for an article. 404House (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Quoting WP:1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Da_Metalhead309 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant yes, but highly significant? On par with Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth? Unlikely. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defeedme (talk • contribs) [reply]
On par with Nidal Hasan perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His bio is already, word for word, in the article about the shooting. This is just a short
WP:content fork. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please look again. These two entries are not at all similar. The biography article is a calmly-told and concise account of Paddok's life. Meanwhile, his description in the parent article is mostly about his life in connection to the crime committed by him. Poeticbent talk 15:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler would have been notable as a politician without WWII; Paddock has no notability outside of the Las Vegas shooting. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The event is unfortunately significant, this individual's role is significant, and given his wealth, his defense contractor ties, his bank robbing father ... there is going to be a lot of biography. Some of it will be of considerable political significance, and frankly, if pundits rush to use this as an excuse for gun laws, then the public will be well served by seeing how immune the shooter would have been to them by virtue of having the money and connections to get any license he asked for. We have more than enough now to have a separate article - because otherwise, we overwhelm the article about the shootings with this personal information, which as it strays into biographical detail produces some unwelcome associations people will be complaining about. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I meant. Please note that
2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting#Perpetrator is already completely out of proportion to the significance of the event itself, and the number of victims. Poeticbent talk 20:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The operative word here is "media coverage". Please note, the entire 4th paragraph in section Perpetrator of the parent article contains information of no relevancy to the actual shooting and should be moved here as a whole because of it. Poeticbent talk 21:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is good example, and I am looking at this part. He had psychiatric problems, had cancer and was on drugs. I hope the investigators are doing all necessary forensics this time. So far, I did not see anything of this nature about Stephen Paddock in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some comments along these lines. And, in my mind, it is a good reason why this article should be removed until we know what the Hell is going on. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: I agree but have the opposite conclusion. Having an article is important to see if it's possible to construct an interesting narrative based on the RS available. It's worth letting the community have a go at it as the investigation continues. If nothing comes up, the the argument for deletion is obvious (e.g. no notable motive in X number of days or weeks or months or whatever) deleting per 'one event' guidelines." - Scarpy (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember
WP:NOTAVOTE, if you cant explain why the policy applies here towards redirecting then your argument doesn't hold water. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:1E stands on it's own pretty well. It's not like this guy was a famous gambler. Come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per one event. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - although known from only one event, the event is very noteworthy as the most deadly mass shooting in US history which makes him very notable. Snow Keep. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defenitely Keep-This is a very important article that sums up what little information we have on the killer. I think it should stay because the rule is that the article has to be about something notable, but not how many notable things, or specifics of what they have to be notable FOR.

But if it matters that much, I suggest moving this entire article to the article about the shooting, adding it as a section, similar to the page, 2014 Isla Vista killings. As you can see, Eliott Rodger's bio is mixed with the attack. I think if an agreement cant be reached, we try that.-K-popguardian (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument why the *event* is notable not the person. Which is what people are suggesting the biography is redirected to. Of course its not actually a notable event just because more people are killed, as mass shootings are common in the US, it would be a notable event if it led to some change in the gun control laws for example. Secondly it is a current event, not 'history'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E is the focus of the counter-argument as the subject's role in the event was a large one. Notability has been established on his part. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTAVOTE -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that most people think of guidelines as 'rules', or at least 'rules of thumb'. However, note that
WP:1E contains an exemption for exactly this kind of scenario that redirect !voters seem to be ignoring: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Some are also insisting that this discussion is a "waste of time" which in my opinion is insulting to the AfD process. This isn't some quiet deletion where we are talking about borderline
WP:CSD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:1E? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
assume good faith and strike out this inflammatory comment if possible, made toward another experienced editor with 10+ years of tenure. Alex ShihTalk 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Asking a question isn't considered inflammatory, I just wanted to know how "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." wouldn't apply. Sorry if I came across as rude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Latest in string of mass shootings from country with poor mental health care & almost zero gun control - next on news at 11, bear shits in woods." Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. To classify the deadliest mass shooting in US history as on the same level as "bear shits in the woods", that takes some serious Olympic level mental gymnastics. How is the deadliest mass shooting in US history not 'highly significant'? and if not, what would you consider 'highly significant'? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not highly significant. Its only 'deadliest' mass shooting by 9 people since the last one. No doubt next year given the lack of any inclination by the US people or its government to restrict access to weapons able to kill large numbers of men, women and children we will be back here with another one. '58 people shot' in a country that has no history of mass shootins is significant. '58 people shot since 49 were last year' is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Benjamin Hoskins Paddock article has only existed since yesterday, maybe it is in need of an AfD itself. (Hint, hint) -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
snow kept. The hint hint is that this AfD, like the Benjamin Hoskin Paddock AfD should be snow kept. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardles, just because the perp's father has an article doesn't mean that the perpetrator himself needs one.
WP:INN. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how
WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I am baffled by this implied argument in many comments here that his notability depends on what his motives were. Sources are investigating and commenting either way, every aspect of this guys life is being poured over and being reported. The perpetrator of the deadliest mass shooting in the USA is going to be notable with or without 'interesting motives'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least as far as my reasoning goes "interesting motives" has nothing to do with it, it's that Paddock is only notable for
WP:1EVENT. Yes it is the worst mass murder in the United States and one of the worst in the world, but the perpetrator is dead now and thus will never be notable beyond the massacre. The only reason I could see an article on the perpetrator existing would be to cover the legal phase after the incident; that is not going to happen in this case. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I was more referring to
WP:1E). These are exactly the kinds of reports form reliable sources that make people notable beyond the event itself (i.e. information from reports about his early life clearly *is* encyclopedic if it has been covered in a reliable source, but is not appropriate for the article on the event, thus justifying a separate article). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:IAR and not glorify the perpetrator with a Wikipedia article. If, however, the cause is something more at the level of biology (e.g. like Charles Whitman) then that knowledge can serve a purpose and an article would have encyclopedic value. - Scarpy (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect - He is only notable for the 1E, and the information about him should be kept in that article. Natureium (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe an exception to WP:BLP1E applies here since this is a much more significant event than most shootings, and is now the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in US history. Paddock, likewise, is a very notable person now with significant coverage from RS. Like other users have said, we have articles for Omar Mateen, the Unabomber, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Timothy McVeigh, and Seung-Hui Cho. I believe the exceptions of 1E in those articles apply here as well. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep despite the number of !votes to the contrary. The argument that there won't be enough coverage specific to the perpetrator because he didn't live to be tried is without merit—
    WP:N
    explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future.
As to
WP:SPINOFF
to recreate this article.
—Syrenka V (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Princip, or LH Oswald have seperate aricles largely because the volume of available info is so great that it could no longer fit comfortably within the 'event' articles. It requires a good deal of CRYSTAL to imagine that this will ever be the case with Paddock. If/when the info no longer fits reasonably ell within this event article, then is the time to 'fork'. All that is achieved by doing it now is to 'disperse' content and duplicate info. Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOW no consensus

  • Comment; It appears to me that the difference in opinions expressed between keep !voters and redirect !voters are twofold:
1) A difference in interpretation of
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
, is undoubtedly a much more "highly significant" event than even the largest mass shooting in US history. This difference in opinion is totally open to interpretation, and as far as I can see, neither side has been able to convince anyone from the other.
2) Different emphasis on anticipation of coverage. Keep !voters have pointed out that significant coverage of his life before the shooting has already emerged, and that it is inevitable that there will be a significant amount of future coverage that won't be appropriate for inclusion in the event article. They argue that the article should be maintained as a separate article to facilitate the inclusion of current and future material. Redirect !voters on the other hand have called this
WP:N
explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future." Again, both of these positions are entirely reasonable, and both have been unable to sway others to their opinion.
I originally asked for this discussion to be reopened, as it wasn't clear that
WP:SNOW or any speedy deletion criteria applied to the early close. However, a picture has emerged since; that these are un-reconcilable differences in the interpretation of policy, and that there is no indication that anyone intends to change their opinion. Considering the current !vote count of 42 to 41, I think that the outcome of this as 'No Consensus' is inevitable and that a SNOW close of No Consensus is justified at this point in the discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Paddock&oldid=1144674150"