WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION STEPHEN PADDOCK

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

(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. GMG ^talk 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.

Keep - per WP:Notability-- Metalhead309 ( talk)

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

Redirect - There is nothing of significance or interest in this persons life up until he committed mass murder. I see no reason to have a page dedicated to him, other than for glorification of his memory. Yevad ( talk) 09:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect - Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, depending on its size, or keep the article, but do not delete the history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; most of the biographical information is already there. Yoninah ( talk) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, this is a bit redundant looking back on it now, and I was the one who did the undo whilst not logged in. Woops. 404House ( talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect – Since he isn’t known for anything else, basically we have two articles about the same event. Objective3000 ( talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect – WP:1EVENT. Since he died, there will be no trial or other content to cover in an encyclopedic way. Neutrality^talk 20:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:BIO1E as everyone else suggests. ansh 666 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedily Redirect per WP:BIO1E. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect and move content to Draft:Stephen Paddock. Paddock will likely gain more notability in the future, per most other perpetrators of mass-shootings of this scale, but that time is not yet. -- Lewis Hulbert ( talk) 20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NOTABILITY KingAntenor ( talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Would you prefer not to have Paddock's bio in Wikipedia? It's sort of like having an article on World War II, and not having an article on Hitler because he has already been covered elsewhere. And ... no photo of course per Wikipedia:Non-free content. This entry was researched and created roughly at the same time as the expansion of section "Perpetrator" in the article 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Please look at timestamps. And, here's what WP:1E says: In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Poeticbent talk 20:34, 3 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

Keep. While WP:WI1E, it states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". The same way we have an article both for the Virginia_Tech_shooting and for Seung-Hui_Cho, we should follow that standard here. -- Rockstone talk to me! 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect, best speedy. There is nothing at this time to take this past the 1E event. There is nothing to say that if down the road it becomes apparent that there is more, it can be forked at that time. It's worth mentioning that most of the keep arguments seem to point to the event, not the man, or are just red herring comparisons to Hitler. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate our efforts on one article now, and move content later if it becomes more appropriate. At this point, every detail we know about this fella is pertanant to the crime and could be covered there just as well as here. The test IMO is there any reason we'd be talking about this fella if he hadn't gone postal? John from Idegon ( talk) 21:04, 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

Redirect - Agreed, the individual in question was not really notable enough to be considered distinct from the event that resulted in his demise. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:BIO1E as everyone else suggests. Whiteguru ( talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect, since the shooter is dead, no further analyses in secondary sources regarding his trial etc., will be possible. Since Wikipedia articles require such analysis, and presently what little " analysis" there is is entirely related to his motive, the shooting article is the place for this. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep, since the event and the individual are both notable, just like how there is an article for both the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and Omar Mateen 86WikiEditor ( talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
definitely redirect On first thought, the article should be a keep in a real encyclopedia but Wikipedia is very specific that they don't want bios of killers or murder victims (instead having a "Murder of Joe Smith" articles instead of "Joe Smith"). AGrandeFan ( talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
keep, because of historical significance- most shooting terrorist act in USA, there is going to be a lot of biography, because of Sourse For NOT FINISHED investigation, because of source for foreigner Wikipedias, because of RESPECT for 100 thousand Americans- simple people,family members and friends of victims ,that NEED this perfectly Wikipedia information.Please, Please! -- Zasdcxz ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete (or Redirect, whatever) Notable for one event, and the event article suffices. If it gets too long, trim extra wordiness and pointless trivia. We're not meant to include everything we can Google. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect The entry for the incident can handle the biographical info easily enough. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. WP:BIO1E states that "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Beeteegee ( talk) 22:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, per Abductive's reasoning. A classic case of WP:BIO1E. As the shooter here is deceased, there will be no more coverage of him outside of the one event he's notable for. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect If coverage in the future shows a need for this to be a separate article, it can be branched back out. But for now, things are best off having this redirect back to the shooting article where most of the information is. Gatemansgc ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; most of the biographical information is already there. Television fan ( talk) 22:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. The event is so notable that we should have a separate page about the perpetrator. This page already passes WP:GNG, but we still do not know the most important thing: why he did it? Obviously, there was a reason, and investigators will find it. Then there will be even more content for the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep; sure he is notable for one event, but analysis of every moment of this guys life is being made in the media currently and will be ongoing for years to come (i.e. there is a 0% chance that he does not meet WP:SUSTAINED). See Omar Mateen for a recent example. Books will be written about this guy, there is no chance that he isn't a long term notable figure (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald is also notable for one event, should we delete his article?). Redirect voters here are focusing too much on WP:BIO1E and WP:RECENTISM and ignoring the forest for the trees. WP:BIO1E says: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(
or here)} 22:55, 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

Redirect The more that's developing, there's less and less to be said about the subject. Better to wait until there's enough content to justify a stand-alone. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong keep I'm afraid Paddock is notable for a separate article. No one in this discussion has mentioned Charles Whitman, the notorious " Texas Tower sniper". I recall he was known solely for mass murder, yet he has a well-written biography. WP:RECENTISM prevails in this case. Ever Crumbling ( talk) 23:23, 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

Delete clearly falls into one event, arguments about more information will follow will only just fill the article with non-noteworthy trivia, all it needs is a bit in the main article related to the event. MilborneOne ( talk) 23:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect by now. Notable for only one event does not appear to have an article for himself. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per clear WP:1E. This shouldn't even deserve a discussion. Kaldari ( talk) 00:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per Insertcleverphrasehere. WP:BIO1E is an important guideline but it does include conditions which have been met to gain this split off article. The very reason that he is an unknown is why investigators are looking so deeply into this person. I also want to add for what its worth is that he is the son of a bank robber who escaped obtaining a place on the FBI's most wanted list. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect obviously per WP:1EVENT not really sure why this is even debated. -- CosmicAdventure ( talk) 01:11, 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

Keep The perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in US history is clearly notable. Even WP:BLP1E says we can and should have an article on such a person if the event is significant and the person's role is substantial and well-documented. The worst mass shooting in US history would definitely qualify as a significant event, and Paddock's role is clearly substantial and well-documented. Smartyllama ( talk) 02:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong keep Paddock is responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. I think he is notable enough for his own article and the article also touches on some personal info. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect - Saw this coming. Yet another case for why we need to enforce WP:NOTNEWS swiftly and effectively. This is a content fork that has BLP issues (yes this can extend to recently deceased people) and he is known for one, unfortunate incident. Perhaps in the future, when his motives and state of mind can be analyzed -- by secondary sources, not news reports -- then he may have a claim for notability as an important case study. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:BIO1E and WP:1EVENT. Not to mention, a subject article just opens up the floodgates for ongoing media speculation posing as content. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect - textbook WP:BLP1E Tazerdadog ( talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep this is good, reliably sourced information that people want to read. Much of it would be out of place in the article about the shooting. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong keep. I vehemently oppose any redirect or deletion attempts. Paddock is (at this moment) the worst mass murderer in American history, so he's clearly notable. There is far too much necessary information to accurately portray Paddock in the overall 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting page. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 04:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep I suppose. I would hate to lose any of the information and putting all this in the article about the shooting would be awkward. We really ought to review this in a year or so. ''Paul, in Saudi'' ( talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete & Redirect per BLP1E. Also news stories about current events are primary sources, and the GNG prefers secondary sources to demonstrate notability. On a basic level 'US gunman kills lots of people' is not at this point in time a notable act, and mass-shootings are common. There is a related discussion at the village pump on the applicability of NOTNEWS as well. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Citing BLP1E is invalid as this is clearly a highly significant event as it's the biggest mass shooting in US history, which the commonality of mass shootings only adds to the high significance. Per precedence with Omar Mateen, knee jerk deletion reactions doesn't overrule history, even bad history. GuzzyG ( talk) 08:27, 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

Keep He is responsible for what is now the deadliest mass shooting in American history, and if other perpetrators of notable shootings such as Dylann Roof, Nidal Hasan, and Omar Mateen have their own articles, I see no reason for Paddock not to have his own either.-- RM ( Be my friend) 08:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep We're likely to know more about him over a time and a separate article makes sense. Laurent ( talk) 08:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Just like the other biggest mass murderers in histroy like Anders Breivik and Omar Mateen, should a separate article be suitable for this mass murderer. JBergsma1 ( talk) 09:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect, best speedy. There is nothing at this time to take this past the 1E event. Sometimes the volume of info about the perpetrator necessitates a seperate article, that is not the case as yet and there is no present reason to suppose there ever will be. This is simply a content fork at present and no good reason for this info NOT being in the main article is offered. Lots of OTHERSTUFF arguments above. "Wait and see" should lead us to wait to see if there is a need. Pincrete ( talk) 09:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete & Redirect for now per WP:1E - contrary arguments above tend to rely upon WP:OTHERSTUFF or that he may be subject to significant coverage in the future to independently have an article in the future - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 09:45, 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

Keep. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTAVOTE -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Lost cause to delete this. Other perps of crimes of this calibre rate an article due to coverage of their pre event life and interest in them. He already meets GNG on the non-crime coverage of his pre-crime life. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep for obvious reasons, this person is clearly "notable." O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015 ( talk) 12:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect. If there's referenced/cited information in it which should be but hasn't yet been included in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, don't overlook it, but it's the event and its ramifications that have the notability, not the contemptible instigator. As far as the existence of pages about Dylan Roof or Omar Mateen, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists that shouldn't. – Athaenara ✉ 12:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: While facially this guy is a one-event, the event is rather significant as the deadliest single perpetrator shooting incident to date in U.S. history. Similar to Timothy McVeigh, the one-event domestic terrorist who was the principal actor in the Oklahoma City bombing, or his primary accomplice Terry Nichols, both of whom rate articles despite their both being WP:1E. Guidelines like 1E are just that, guidelines, not rules. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 12:58, 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

Keep Historical event that will have long term coverage. Wikipedia would be incomplete without an in-depth biography that would be impossible to maintain in the space allocated in the event article via redirect. If not kept it should move back to Draft space so it can be further developed as new sourcing comes available. -- Green C 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable enough to have own Wikipedia article. It needs to be a separate article with all information known about him. AlaskanNativeRU ( talk) 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Stephen Paddock does not follow any previous spree killer characteristics, this by itself already makes Paddock notable. Plus the article for the seemingly non-notable spree killer Seung-Hui_Cho was kept, we need to keep Wikipedia consistent. -- Moebiusstrip ( talk) 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep As one-event person whose one event was profoundly notable, just like Omar Mateen and Seung-Hui Cho. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 14:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - If he isn't notable now he will be in a few days, keep the page to save the trouble of writing it over again. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,
Contribs)} 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Per the "recentism" essay that talks about news spikes and dealing with lots of information that might otherwise glut up the original article. There is a lot of worndering about "who was this guy" and "is he a terrorist or a lone wolf or what" ... a really good encyclopedia should be able to provide people this information. Once wikipedia has pulled together all relevant information, this guy's bio might stand alone or not but it is too early to tell what even happened. Peace, MPS ( talk) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting as others have suggested. He is not notable outside of this event. Snorepion ( talk) 15:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, since he is not notable outside of the shooting. Also, this prevents any "fame" of having a separate page. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect - can't see much justification for an exception to WP:1E, i.e. write an article about the event, with a paragraph about the person (whose biography is not even that large). -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep w/o prejudice to renom in 6 months. We all know this AfD is not a good way to spend our time, wait 6 months until after things have calmed down hopefully.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:1E. The information is useful but can be covered elsewhere. He has no notability except for this one event. -- El on ka 15:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

~~@ Elonka: Have you read WP:1E? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)~~ reply

@ Knowledgekid87: Please assume good faith and strike out this inflammatory comment if possible, made toward another experienced editor with 10+ years of tenure. Alex Shih ^Talk 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

Redirect – Until any further notable details of his life come to life, it is sufficient that his entire bio be a section in the massacre article. If further details, separate from his role in the massacre, come to light later that warrant a separate article, then, but only then, can such an article can be split off on its own. — Loadmaster ( talk) 16:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Unlike say, Anders Breivik or Nidal Malik Hassan who were arrested after their rampages and faced legal actions as a result, the perpetrator in this massacre is dead. There will not be any trial or any other sort of legal procedure that takes place regarding Padddock so it seems to me that this article is a pointless WP:DUPLICATE and WP:CONTENTFORK. What could be included here that could not be included in the Perpetrator section of the event's article? -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 16:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep There are already separate articles for Omar Mateen and Seung-Hui Cho, both of which killed less people than Paddock. Paddock's own father even has his own Wiki page, Benjamin Hoskins Paddock. If that wasn't enough, Paddock is the perpetrator of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. Modern History how can than not be classed as notable? Inexpiable ( talk) 17:08, 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

The Benjamin Hoskins Paddock AfD was 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

Keep. When the nominator is not endorsing a deletion ("It's not quite an AfD, but it's not quite a merger"), got to wonder why the nomination. Seems to be the obligatory AfD for articles surrounding recent events. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep for now - Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how Charles Whitman is notable. So we might as well collect information on him until that clearly is or is not the case. If his motives are discovered to be "non-exceptional" and undue publicity for them would be counter-productive (e.g. no benefit to neuroscience or anything like that, just a glorification of terrorism or resentment) then I would say redirect. - Scarpy ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how Charles Whitman is notable. Yes, and the sky may turn cyan tomorrow. Wikipedia is not a 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 Scarpy's comment. In any case, notability is based on the sources that cover the subject, not what he did. The coverage of this guy's early life have been run-of-the-mill a week ago, but it isn't any more, and there is plenty of sourcing already from high profile sources attempting to uncover everything they can about his life before the incident (he alsready meets WP:GNG, a higher level notability guideline than 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

@ Millionsandbillions: not really the same, it's not a prediction as much as we know that eventually through investigation, autopsy, etc something motivating him to commit the crime will be uncovered -- you don't need a crystal ball for that, the crime was already committed so there was something motivating it, that's certain. What is not certain, yet, is what the motivation would be. This is where I disagree with Insertcleverphrasehere if his motivations were just at the level of personal resentment or ideology, then I would say we're outside the scope of where guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:1E apply for the reason you mention -- this is the deadliest spree killing in American history. That's a perfect reason to 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

Keep - Agree with those pointing to the Unabomber and several articles on infamous criminals including mass shooters such as Charles Whitman. I don't see where this is even arguable. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 17:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Why can it be an exception for WP:1E? -- Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Because WP:1E reads: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". There is no denying that the suspect had a huge role in this event and has been covered extensively in the media. The guideline is best used for WP:LOWPROFILE people. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:52, 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— Charles Whitman, perpetrator of the University of Texas tower shooting, likewise died on the scene but that didn't prevent ample coverage specific to the perpetrator. We already know that Stephen Paddock's background is atypical for mass shooters; further investigation will only underscore this fact and expand upon it. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply—it is about cases where the occurrence of the event itself, or its own factual characteristics, are speculative. The guidelines themselves explicitly allow, and even mandate, predictions of the level of future coverage of events—for example, WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future.

As to WP:BIO, it is not entirely consistent on matters relevant to the question at hand, and IMO will need to be revised for consistency after conclusion of this AfD (though it would be a very bad idea to revise it during the AfD!). WP:CRIME within WP:BIO does say "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." Yet WP:1E within WP:BIO says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"—and goes on to offer assassin Gavrilo Princip as an example. And even WP:CRIME goes on to say that "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." An atypical mass shooter responsible for the worst mass shooting in USA history? You don't need a crystal ball to know what length considerations will necessitate for this one. Deletion or redirection would only interfere pointlessly with the normal editing process, and require a 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

Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; In time this guy might become culturally significant as others who committed significant acts. When that happens mentioning "Stephen Paddock" will invoke a social response. But he is not like that yet. He might just end up being "that guy who shot up a lot of people in Las Vegas." Wikipedia should not lead cultural trends, it should follow them. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep They already have significant coverage which is only going to increase over time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect not individually notable,-- KTo288 ( talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep-The subject has significant media coverage as noted. I also point out that we have articles for several other perpetrators of mass acts of violence, who weren't notable for anything else. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:40, 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 WP:1E. Keep voters (including myself) have argued that the line: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." justifies inclusion, which is reasonable. Redirect voters place more emphasis on the opening lines of WP:1E, and in particular generally dispute that the "event is highly significant". This is also reasonable, as the example WP:1E gives, of Gavrilo Princip and his role in the 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:CRYSTAL, say that both articles are currently short enough to justify a merger, and also suggest that we should not speculate on future coverage but base their !votes on current coverage only. Syrenka V has commented just above about how WP:CRYSTAL is not intended to apply to anticipation of future coverage, but only to anticipation of furture events. Syrenka V further argues that anticipation of future coverage is essential and that " WP:SUSTAINED within 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

Support - My intention was to record a strong consensus one way or the other, but that doesn't seem to be happening, and if it's going to be redirected, and per Milowent, that strong consensus may be more likely to happen in a few months. Let's not waste any more time on it when it's clear a strong consensus is not going to be achieved within the next few days. GMG ^talk 20:59, 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.

Stephen Paddock

SNOW no consensus

Stephen Paddock

SNOW no consensus

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook