Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seung-Hui Cho (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy keep per consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui_Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not meet the standard of WP:BLP1E, as the subject of the article has no notable accomplishments other than his involvement with the Virginia Tech massacre. From the policy, noted in multiple situations (including from Wikipedia legal and ArbCom cases) as being key to the project: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:ONEEVENT was intended to keep people who do silly and stupid things out of the encyclopedia, not mass murderers who receive international coverage. Again and again we have these forced rituals. Why? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep through WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The massive media coverage of the VTech shooting definitely ensures that Cho, the central figure, gets an article. Easily passes WP:BIO. GlassCobra 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-referenced and far too long to be merged into the main article. We should avoid glorifying this person, obviously, but deleting the article would do more harm than good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I know that there are people who are concerned that we are somehow "honoring" a murderer if an article is written about that person, but sometimes people want to know more about Lee Harvey Oswald or Charles Manson or Seung-Hui Cho and they look in an encyclopedia for the answer. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. He is not only the purporter of the biggest school shooting, but is responsible for the biggest single handed shooting spree in United States history. Reliable sources thus cover him in more than one context. WilliamH (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a well-sourced biography of someone who is undisputably notably. The driving force behind WP:BLP1E is to ensure that articles on living persons are NPOV compliant, and don't give undue weight to one event. However, in this case, we have a substantial amount of biographical information that lets us say more than "this person went on a shooting spree". Bfigura ^(talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and speedy keeep. Subject is ridiculously notable. Even though most of his notability can be tied to one event, there is a lot of coverage about the subject beyond the simple acts that he did; i.e, his history, psychological issues, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Highly notable, the perpatrator of the worst school shooting in US history and linked from a featured article, as well as mentioned internationally should have an article. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and Speedy Keep. If Seung-Hui Cho is not notable, then let's delete John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and everyone else who is primarily limited to one single incident of crime. While not every criminal perpetrating every major incident is notable, sometimes the personality behind the incident is such that notability becomes established. The coverage of Cho, with his behavior and his psychological issues, established his notability. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per everyone, and also because I think it's dangerous to read our policy on biographies of living people as applying to content on people that aren't, you know, living. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If his article was short, he could be considered to be merged back into the VT shooting page. But his article is not short, it is also not bad (quite the opposite), so this article should obviously be kept. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 28 April 2008 (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.