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 not-delete per WP:SNOW. It's obvious after one day of discussion that there will not be consensus to delete, so I'm closing the AfD early because it stands a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding and because it is an eyesore on a high-traffic page. Whether this should be redirected to the article about the event is an editorial judgment, to be worked out with the passage of time. It is inappropriate to use AfD to have that debate. -- Y not? 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Scott Mac's notion that closing this AfD will engender an edit war, the correct remedy against an edit war is protection, not the continuation of a pointless AfD. -- Y not? 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Lee Loughner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject known only for one event per WP:BLP1E. KimChee (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting#Primary suspect, where it was merged to several hours ago. Agree with nom, it's WP:BLP1E at this point. It might warrant a standalone article down the line, but would try to keep it in the shooting-article for now. Would urge for a rather speedy close of this AfD per WP:IAR, measured in hours, not days. Amalthea 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per WP:BLP1E and above. Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per above --Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per above --Guerillero | My Talk 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be an absolute joke not to give this a standalone article. Clearly there is info relevant to this page that is not relevant to the Tuscon Massacre. Note how the Columbine or Virginia Tech kids have their on pages, redirecting this is simply delaying the inevitable.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invevitable maybe but not now, can you honestly say that this article can stand alone without having most of it copied from the main article? I would wait for more information to come out first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect per above. There is nothing here that can be on the target article. --Scott Mac 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.^[1]" Very significant event. To assume there will not be persistent coverage of this person is willful ignorance. WP:BLP1E also states this is for "low profile" individuals. This person is in no manner "low profile." --Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sympathetic to this, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait for that to be established. Joran van der Sloot was a redirect for a very long time for this very reason. KimChee (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect It is too soon to make this into an article, when more info comes into light then might be, but not now. Article was redirected to 2011 Tucson shooting#Primary suspect and should stay like that for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect. This fork is liable to become a magnet for POV-pushing (it already seems to be heading that way). There are enough articles already on the shootings and related issues, and another one will make adequate scrutiny difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect at least until we have some authoritative stuff about the guy. If and when the shooting article becomes too long we can split it off. I agree that WP:BLP1E is kind of a joke, but until there's actually a reason for a daughter article he doesn't exist out of the context of the shooting. SDY (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all the above; no issues against recreating in the future if we need to split from the main article. --Cyclopia^talk 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wasn't really going to take a side, but I must play devils advocate and say that many other suspects in many other shootings have gone through similar AFDs and it always seems to be keep. His information is coming out quickly, and its best to keep the article active while fresh information continues to pour out of reliable sources. Remember that this is being called an assassination attempt. Assassins are usually notable, wouldn't you say?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENT should probably be mentioned, and WP:NOTNEWS. Let the secondary sources have at it first. If he becomes a notable topic in and of himself we should have an article. If he's just part of the shooting, there's no need for a separate article. SDY (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any of those AFDs specifically? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make a difference in your opinion on this matter?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just being curious here but why was this sent to AfD (An AfD is a place to send an article to be deleted)? There could not have been a consensus on the article's talk page on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had observed a similar process just close for Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. If there is a better merge discussion procedure, I will keep that in mind for the future. Here is a link to the previous discussion. KimChee (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - there is nothing here that isn't in the 2011 Tucson shooting article and I have a bad feeling, given that this is a current event, the article could become libellous and/or inaccurate and quoted in the press. Perhaps we should consider giving the man a separate article after the repercussions of the shootings are clearer and sources become more reliable and less speculative. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting. Loughner fails WP:BIO1E and does not qualify for a standalone article. All that is necessary can be found in the main article. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:CFORK. I expect this will eventually be a legitimate article in its own right. For now, it is just a place to duplicate content and drama already covered by other articles and their talkpages. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect without prejudice if an article is warranted in the future. There is no urgency. Seaphoto^Talk 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (and merge anything not found at the attack article, but there's unlikely to be any such material). Loughner is not notable for anything prior to the shooting, and he is unlikely to accrue the opportunity to be notable for any future acts that would involve being outside of a prison. Given that he's notable for this one alleged act, WP:BLP1E says we should have only one article. If he ever deserves coverage for anything unrelated to the shooting, a separate article can be started at that time, but it's not needed now. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak redirect (and maybe merge) to 2011 Tucson shooting#Primary suspect per WP:BLP1E: When I was adding categories for this article, it appeared to me that this subject has no substantial existing Wikipedia category without violating WP:BLP; and note that that categories such as "People suspected of..." are regularly nixed on Wikipedia. That should probably be a warning sign that this person can't be said to be notable for anything cognizable as a valid Wikipedia article for now. Right now there is no evidence that anyone but Loughner is "the" perpetrator, in which case Loughner and the 2011 Tucson shooting are the same subject. If there were conspirators, that may be a different story; but there is no evidence of that. --Closeapple (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect while he may warrant his own article in the future I think the available information is well covered by the article on the shooting for now. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.^[1]" This is a very high profile assassination attempt. There will almost definitely be a great amount of additional coverage of Loughner. WP:BLP1E states such deletion is for "low profile" persons; Loughner is definitely not "low profile". At a minimum, we should let this AfD run its course, as "speedy deletion" would more than likely be an abuse of process.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd say this warrants its own article. It's information may be hearsay or inaccurate, but I have faith that it will improve, and improve quickly, as more information become available. Give it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.80.210 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.168.80.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The argument declaring this subject unworthy of its own article because Loughner is only known for one event is a worthless argument. People who are otherwise little known but for one event consistently warrant their own articles. What else was Timothy McVeigh known for but for the OKC bombing? He has an article distinct from the OKC bombing article. Surely a gunman who assails a federal judge and a congresswoman warrants same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgctobin (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the 2011 Tucson shooting article. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, random shooters of random passersby largely deserve to be merged - but shooters of judges and congressmen deserve their own articles to allow context to their childhood, beliefs and other details not immediately relevant to the actions of the day in question. January82011 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These details are not yet available. When there is enough encylopedic material available to warrant a biographical article that doesn't just reproduce content that is already in WP elsewhere, then fine. --FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.^[1]" I also feel that just the fact that the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech Massacre, Seung-Hui Cho, also has his own article, and this massacre has garnered as much attention as that massacre, means that Laughner should have an artice.--SnipeShot (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per various quotes of WP:BLP1E regarding significant events and substantial roles. If articles were created regarding the victims (other than the judge and congresswoman), they would be good candidates for WP:BIO1E, but not an article about the shooter. John Darrow (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – We barely have any substantive information to warrant its own article at this time, especially when most of the stuff about him is based on pure speculation (especially since the shooting happened yesterday and that he has refused to speak). This is another example of recentism. –MuZemike 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect - not known for anything except the one crime and not likely to be. Classic WP:BLP1E per nominator. Anything that needs saying about Loughner in a biographical sense will fit well into the article on the shooting. Being temporarily notorious isn't likely to change that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This AFD is stupid, keep. Give it time to develop. A deletion discussion is not a good venue for the merge/not merge question. In time it's quite likely this will be a separate article. Friday (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the nominator's rationale. I quote, "If that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Loughner is going to be highly profiled, much like Seung-Hui Cho was. In addition, WP:BLP1E says, "Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit" into the category of having a separate biography. Loughner is on even ground with Hinckley as the would-be assassin of a U.S. national politician. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has become 10x as notable as Mechele Linehan. If she still has a page, then Loughner should keep his. AlaskaMike (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge without prejudice for recreation. WP:BLP1E. Loughner is essentially an example case of an individual who will be highly profiled for his role in a well-documented event, but his article is essentially a copy of the shooting article as it stands. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above. GreenGlass^(talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why was this reopened? Ummmm..... okay what is going on here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• same question --Guerillero | My Talk 04:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect per nom. --mav (reviews needed) 04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, why was this reopened?--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 10. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, his name is already famous. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addm: I'm glad this discussion was reopened. For sure, it shouldn't have been "speedily redirected", usually Afds get 7 days. I don't understand why the notability is so questioned. There are plenty of articles on "notable" soccer players out there that nobody's ever heard of. Maybe the problem here is that the article could be seen as "USA-centric"? --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect asap — I had closed this as a speedy redirect, because a suspect of a crime is not notable enough to have their own article (BLP1E), per our policies. This has been repeatedly backed by consensus in prior incarnations of similar situations to redirect per WP:BLP1E when a person is merely a suspect and that the suspect is only notable for the event. --slakr^\ talk / 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to those who want his own article I feel it will happen It just takes time The man has not even gone to trial yet people, there is no rush here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: is a important part of facts in Tucson. Shooke (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per WP:BIO as an alleged assassin, alleged attempted assassin, and alleged mass murderer, per indictments. As notable as Mark David Chapman, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, Paul John Knowles and John Wilkes Booth. WP:BIO and WP:N satisfied by over 6700 independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, as shown by Google News at [1]. Even has three names. Edison (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Super notable as the suspect is the first assassination attempt of a US Politician since Ronald Reagan--Hutcher (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sadly, I say keep. Being despicable to this degree is notable, and the notoriety will grow as the investigation, trial etc. progress. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: For reasons above. Moncrief (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - otherwise unnotable punk kid.- Gilliam (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep give the man his own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack11111 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 10 January 2011

Comment on reopening I'm reopening this after a good faith but poorly judged "speedy keep". The article may well be kept, but there are diverse views here and the discussion is ongoing. There was also a merge decision elsewhere, so the result of the close was an edit war. Best to let this run its course, and keep all the discussion in one place. As I say, it may well be kept, but a proper process and unified discussion forum here are an advantage to avoiding disruption.--Scott Mac 09:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Seung-Hui Cho--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per BLP1E. Does not warrant a standalone article at this point. There is entirely insufficient verifiable content to create a balanced article as required by BLP policy. _wjemather^bigissue 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:PERPETRATOR criteria 2 and 3. One of the targets was a house representative, and the event has received a massive amount of attention. We have generally kept articles on people who have committed multiple murders previously. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons others have given already, especially prior precedents of the many mass murderers and serial killers with articles on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 11:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As said by others above, he's becoming more notable by the hour (which also appears to be reflected by the shift from "redirect" to "keep" in this discussion as the days go by). Merging the article with the one about the shooting itself wouldn't make things any clearer. FCTS 142 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting per WP:BLP1E. If, eventually, enough verifiable material from reliable sources becomes available to warrant a standalone article, it can be created, but as it is now, this articles goes against policy.  --Lambiam 13:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the article will only get longer over time as more info comes out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I would have said merge, but as time goes on more and more is going to/has come out about him. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Not much different from the Don't Tase Me Bro guy. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like Ted Williams, the article will only expand as more information is revealed to the public. WereWolf (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Ted Williams is a junk article on someone who is about 14.5 minutes into his time in the spotlight. Judge this on its own merits, not in relation to anything else. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect now per WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E is a WP:policy and should not be overridden because some people want to claim that more information will be forthcoming, a nonsensical WP:CRYSTAL-violating argument. Keeping the article open, violating policy, for the sake of this AFD is also Wikilawyering; the article can be redirected/merged until the end of this AFD. Don't forget, BLP applies to all living humans. Abductive (reasoning) 14:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing us that direction. :) Part of that policy is, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the judgement should be made in advance, so that the page always gets to exist, violating policy the whole time. Great Wikilawyering. Abductive (reasoning) 14:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no policy violation. And thinking he's not going to continue to be newsworthy is where crystal-balling comes in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are the final arbiter of policy, huh? He is a news worthy WP:BLP1E. BLPs are the most dangerous subject for Wikipedia to Ignore All Rules about. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS should be considered fatal for this page. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep - I hate articles like this, but the "...including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities" part of WP:PERPETRATOR is pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This hinges on the assumption that Loughner is the "perpetrator". "Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." WP:PERPETRATOR - SummerPhD (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. From BLP1E: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. So not worthy of an article yet, but probably will be later. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why re-invent the wheel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tarc.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Initially I was thinking this should be a redirect since Jared Lee Loughner's article and the section on him in the Tucson shootings article don't differ all that much in content... but by the time this AfD process is over, there probably will be enough information on Loughner to justify his own article. So yeah it's preemptive, but we might as well keep it. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Cautious keep, at this point. It does seem that the individual has been the primary focus of multiple sources, but those sources contain precious little biographical data. I don't think we will know for some time whether the coverage outside of his obvious hate campaign will actually become significant. Right now, trying to prevent people from writing about "teh shooterz!!!!!" is doomed to failure, so let's reconsider after any trial. 80.254.146.36 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - WP:BLP1E simply does not apply here. Loughner is not someone who will be in the news for a day or a month. His trial is certain to carry on beyond this year. He is 22 years old and his name will appear in the news until he dies. He is also the first individual in the United States in decades to carry out an assassination attempt where the target was actually seriously wounded. I think the desire to redirect this article is based upon a natural abhorrence for the violent act that Loughner committed. But it is precisely his heinous crime that he will be known for in history. Any encyclopedia on modern American crime would have an article of Loughner in it. I’ve written articles for actual encyclopedias published in paper and sitting on the shelves of libraries and I can say with confidence that no publisher of an encyclopedia on crime in America would ever say, “I don’t think it would be appropriate to have an article on Jared Lee Loughner in here.” The political repercussions of his act are not as grave as those of Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, Jr., Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray. But Loughner is certainly as notable as Arthur Bremer, Seung-Hui Cho, and Joseph Paul Franklin. And to claim that there should not be an article about Loughner because we don’t know all of the facts is not convincing. If that was the case, we would have refrained from writing an article about the entire shooting until there was a full investigation.David Straub (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article will mature over time; it may not be all that justified as a standalone right at the moment, but it will be eventually. No need to throw it away when it's just going to come back later anyway. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect We cannot predict the future; redirect per WP:BLP1E and if he receives adequate coverage later on to require a separate article, split it then. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why re-invent the wheel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the main article at the content, do you really think that is going to be expanded upon ten fold in a few days? Yes the man is notable that is not the issue here, the issue is content and time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Time? Is there a deadline??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No deadline just more information that should come in first about the subject, he has not even gone to trial yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely. The story's just getting started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E states, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." We can't tell right now how persistent the coverage will continue to be. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say Keep right now. While conforming to WP:BLP1E this event is notable. A shooting occured where more than one public official was shot, including a Federal Judge, who was killed. I think the dispute is part of Wikipedia:BLP1E, should we consider this event notable, or as notable as Columbine or a Presidential assassination (attempt), or should we redirect for now until we figure out if this is notable? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 16:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I think creating this articles was a bit premature, I'm convinced that we are eventually going to need one. There's already lots of information available about him, more will follow in the next few days, and the main shooting article will eventually become too large. Many have quoted WP:BLP1E as a reason for deletion. But it is already 100% clear this person is not going to be notable for just one event (the shooting). He will also be notable for the upcoming court case, which I'm sure will generate huge media attention. Furthermore, he may well get the death penalty, which will give him more attention, this time for a different reason - the debate concerning the death penalty. Specifically, BLP1E says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The bolded part will be untrue in this case. Nanobear (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for now. I would be more willing to vote REDIRECT later on, after the dust settles and there is more information available about both the shootings and this individual. Redirecting right now seems like a overreaction. I'd say that since this is an encyclopedia and not a news site, we should move slowly on such deletions. It's very easy to revisit this later on and delete. But for now, let's hold off and keep.ArchieOof (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most certainly exceeds WP:NOTE in secondary source coverage from WP:RS sources. Similar to model at existing article, Seung-Hui Cho, which is WP:GA quality, a good case study. -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The problem is that most of this article at the moment is rehashing 2011 Tucson shooting. There may come a time when this is not the case, but at the moment the main article has priority.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is obviously eventually going to be an article on him and deleting/redirecting until some arbitrary and variable standard for critical mass of media coverage is met is a pointless exercise. --B (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per WP:BLP1E, article does not meet the notability requirement to be an exception such as Sirhan Sirhan. Just a weirdo who killed some people, nothing else interesting about this guy, or likely to be. Ronnotel (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:NOTNOW. I know that WP:NOTNOW applies for RfA, but the basic reasoning is the same, there is still not enough coverage to assert notability. 187.160.43.97 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for citing some policy to support the "wait-and-see" position. Respectfully, however, I don't think that policy is applicable by analogy. The rationale there appears to be that an admin candidate needs a certain "body of work" to be usefully evaluated. Here, however, we know the basic "body of work" of this individual with respect to the notability criterion, and it seems clear that he will meet it at some point in the future, if he doesn't already. Thus, delaying the creation of a separate article seems pointless. Certainly, poorly-sourced material should not be included just to flesh this standalone article out, but neither should the entire article be deleted or merged. SS451 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was me on the prev IP, I forgot to log in. In any case, what is becoming notable now is the event itself, not the perpetrator. For the time being, I think this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT, and it is certainly not the time to make this article. With the information we have on him, I believe a redirect to the 2011 Tucson shooting would suffice, until the legal process against this man begins, which will carry more sources and material to develop a full article. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A lot of the arguments seem to acknowledge that he will likely end up with his own article, but are urging some unspecified period of delay before that happens. I haven't seen any policy cited for this stance, and it strikes me as rather odd. I don't see why we need to blind ourselves to the fact that people who kill or injure important public figures generally end up being notable (in terms of sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources), or the fact that Loughner is the sole suspect in this assassination attempt. SS451 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Certainly deserves a mention in 2011 Tucson shooting, however it's a bit premature for standalone article. --Hu12 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per per WP:BLP1E - "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." The fact that Loughner has been arrested and is the main suspect in the shooting of a sitting Congressperson is worthy of an article of his own. Although he has not been convicted of the shootings as of yet, his notability is already established; being tied to the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona. ExRat (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample reliable and verifiable source are about the individual, establishing notability per WP:BLP1E. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel like some of people do not know that during an AfD the outcome can be to redirect or merge the article. For the record this article is NOT being deleted in any form and the information redirected/merged or kept will still be there, where the info ends up though is another story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per WP:BLP1E, supported by WP:CRYSTAL and WP:IAR. The only reasons for current inclusion of a separate page are examples of assassins used in the WP references as well as speculation on the future content of the suspect's page. To the first, the assassins referenced in the WP guidelines are already well known and deeply researched with wide and well documented secondary sources, Loughner does not fit that description. To the second, whether or not he requires his own page in the future is not the relevant issue (exactly the reason for WP:CRYSTAL), likely he will but he does not currently. In order for Wikipedia to not become a series of one line entries there must be discernment about which entries should be separated and WHEN they should be separated. The collection becomes better when the community is more discerning and thus the purpose of WP:IAR. Is Wikipedia, and those using it for reference, better served currently by multiple short entries focused on specific aspects of the Tucson shooting or by one authoritative event entry collecting all pertinent information. A single entry is much more in keeping with WP:IAR due to the increased ease of finding information and holding editors accountable for their entries. When Mr. Loughner's information on the event page becomes overly lengthy and has a depth beyond descriptions of his involvement and certain short references to his recent online ramblings, then it will likely to be appropriate to split it off, but until then it does not serve the community better to have multiple pages. Yipeedog (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I heard that this guy was young and his page helped me confirm it quickly. 98.235.23.59 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect until the situation progresses more. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per WP:BLP1E and above. A full article might be warranted in the future, but not now. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect - per slakr and SummerPhD above. WP:BLP1E does not apply, but WP:BLP absolutely applies. This person is still only a suspect. Early information is likely to be inacurate or just plain wrong, this can become an article later when details are much more reliable. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does him being a suspect prevent him from getting an article like this? As long as the article makes it clear that he is a suspect, and that all of the coverage is based on him being accused of the crime, then it's perfectly fine. If he's found innocent (not by reason of insanity), the coverage will further develop and the early coverage will be expanded upon. It would not invalidate the raison d'etre of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With so many border-line notable people with articles on Wikipedia, this one is straight forward. People want to know who this person is and why this this person was pushed to perform the acts that made national headlines. Aside from all the rules, regs, appionions, and bias on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is where people are going for information and people want information on this person. Step out of the box and look at the bigger picture; keep the page and it will grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.41.228 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even though I might be agreeing with the nominator on the one event part, I have to say that this is a special case and I believe Keeping the article is best for know.

However if it is decided to be merge I would suggest making the Jared Lee Loughner part of the article into perhaps a bit more of a bio of him. But for now I support the Keeping of this special case article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BLP and arguments above. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as noted above BLP1E says it is permissible to have an article on someone only known for one event if the individual's role in that event is significant and the event is high profile. The shooting incident is going to continue to generate coverage for months if not years, and discussion of the motives of the perpetrator is a large component of that coverage. It is quite common for the perpetrators of well-known or important crimes/attempted crimes to have their own articles (see, for example, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, John Hinckley, Jr., Frank Eugene Corder, etc). The fact that he's merely a suspect and hasn't been convicted yet doesn't make any significant difference as long as the article is written properly. Nor is this reasoning invalidated by WP:CRYSTAL, since WP:CRYSTAL is about articles' coverage of anticipated events, not editorial discussions about future/long term notability. Hut 8.5 18:58, 10 January 2011 (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.