Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Keep. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Eagan Holmes

edit
AfDs for this article:
James Eagan Holmes (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)
  • WP:PERP. No indication that he is a lasting figure of notability beyond the contemporaneous news coverage, and we should not be indulging the copy-cat mentality and turning murderers like him into infamous celebrities.
  • Also see this lengthy administrators discussion regarding the exact issue of perpetrators' stand alone pages Wikipedia:AN#Length_of_full_prevention_on_shooter_page
  • Finally, this article is essentially an unneeded WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the event article, with almost no information not (or that could not easily be) duplicated there.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - why try to beat a dead horse? this AfD is over before it began. Highly notable because of persistent coverage by media and passing WP:GNG by a mile.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no knowledge of persistent coverage, it has all been part of the immediate event. If people are writing books about him years from now, like Oswald, Hinkley etc, then that is persistent coverage. WP:PERP specifically discludes contemporaneous coverage, which all of this coverage is. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Pretty much seconding what BabbaQ said - the article covers a notable subject who still gets plenty of ongoing news coverage attesting to said notability. I find the timing of this nomination (i.e. several days after the Sandy Hook massacre) to be a rash, knee-jerk reaction. Why is there no hue and cry to delete Jared Lee Loughner's page, for example? 3hunna (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRIME: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." WWGB (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage has this had that is something "Beyond contemporaneous news coverage" ? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstention I thought we are over this?! Fox2k11 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep 4 this reason I agree with the thought that this page should be deleted due to the fact that it lends fame to these cowardly nut cases however I think it should be kept here for the simple reason that this active shooter type scenario, while not entirely new, has definitely gained some kind of favorability among lunatics as of late and this page with the background/history of the offender may serve a basis for a personality profile which could be used to potentially provide relevant information into a profile of future nut-cases... Wikispeak1 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Wikispeak1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Umh, do you suggest that our law enforcement relies on our information we give in articles or do you encourage private persons to do their work? Maybe I misunderstood? In any case, there is a big difference between an encyclopedia and ongoing real live by professionals. Here on WP we don't do "profiling" and such is not a reason to keep the article in question. We go by our rules, policies and guidelines, not by our own opinions or feelings.TMCk (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets notability criteria. BLP1E, by it's own criteria, does not apply. BLP1E lists 3 criteria necessary for it to apply. Only one is met, so the criteria are not met for BLP1E to apply. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which BLP1E are you referring to? There must be more than one if you're right. And what about WP:PERP? Any take on that?TMCk (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E. It lists three bullet points, and says that all three must be true for BLP1E to apply. In this case, and similar cases, the first criteria may apply, but the second and third generally do not apply. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping nor is expecting a long trial as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the shooting article, there is simply no new information here. - filelakeshoe 15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I am thinking that even though it does give attention to this kind of stuff its an important reference. I came to this page to get sources to compare shooters over time to see where they got their guns...this is part of an analysis of gun laws ...so it seems important o be able to look up details like this on killers. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovegrant (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you have failed to address how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I see no real reason not to have the article, and agree that it is simply being recommended to be deleted in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. It is still of informational value despite the notoriety of it's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrrgghhh (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — Arrrgghhh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: This crime was really the first of its kind. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not the first school shooters so should we delete their page too?Nettieoneg (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete I've been following this AfD for a number of days and none of the keep arguments are convincing. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used as well as crystal balling on future coverage. This one fails WP:PERP which trumps WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the end of the trial: Of course there haven't been any updates lately. He's just sitting in jail. Once the trial progresses, we're guaranteed to be given more information that is likely to be quite unique to Holmes and this particular incident. It seems premature to delete it and insist that it's not historically significant enough at this point. Not only this, but the event has already sparked similar copycat attempts recently. Like I said, we should at least wait to see how everything plays out before deciding to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.178.252 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 108.180.178.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. The WP way is to wait how things "play out" before even creating such an article because our guidelines and policies strongly advise us to take this approach. Like LipStar said above, there are little to none arguments to keep that are base on those rules.TMCk (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Why? Those policies don't back up your claim.TMCk (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holmes' role in the shooting has been extensively documented. BLP1E calls for deletion if the event isn't significant and the subject's role in it isn't well-documented. And this crime is one of the deadliest shootings in history, and has been covered for over six months.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 01:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This meets WP:PERP in spades: "the execution of the crime is unusual". Hello? He went to a movie screening through an emergency door, was wearing full body armor, and used gas canisters. And then he shot 70 people. As for sustained coverage, of course most of the focus was at the time of, but he still has gotten plenty of coverage in the last 30 days.--Chaser (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2012 (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/James_Eagan_Holmes_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1259612417"