Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet)

Peter Wang (cadet)

Peter Wang (cadet) (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)

Other people have had their articles deleted on the basis that they are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. These people were arguably more notable than the subject of this article, see this discussion for an example. On that reasoning I propose delete. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E exist for this type of thing. Blow the impact alarum. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• If it isn't already there, I would merge the part about the petition into the article on the shooting and redirect there. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC) See below in light of continuing coverage.
• Delete NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E/BIO1E. Possible redirect (though as we have a notable Peter Wang - doing this with the (cadet) tacked on would not make too much sense) to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, where most of the relevant contents from this article are already in (so not much to merge). Should he (unlikely BALL warning) receive the congressional medal of honor we could re-discuss.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'll be a little sadder to see it redirect, since this one contains 94% less unjustifiable loss of promising young life, but I'll take comfort in knowing his bio's not alone with his other 16 schoolmates' (who had soul but were not soldiers), all glossed over equally in the article about the one event none of them wanted, helped create or will ever have anything to do with again. Maybe "comfort" is the wrong word, but Delete is the right choice. There are better ways to feel happy online than pretending to remember someone you just heard about as one aspect of who they were. You could get to know a living person and help them remember a positive aspect they'd forgotten about their own lives, like #BeccaToldMeTo a few hours ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:47, February 20, 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would just like to clarify that the choice to propose the deletion was only taken after lengthy consideration and is in no way intended to tarnish the memory of the victims of such a horrific act. Yes what he did was heroic, but unfortunately I cannot see any reason which justifies him as noteworthy enough to have an article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Your lack of vision is not a reason to delete an article on a subject whose coverage satisfies GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON, along with the other reasons.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per the others. Wang is a hero, but at this point in time does not deserve an article separate from the article about the shooting itself. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I'm afraid. No individual notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Article didn't exist before shooting. Speed74 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would just also like to point out that if this article is deleted, the page Peter Wang (student) also needs to be deleted as it redirects to this article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete No lasting or significant impact outside of this event that would warrant an independent article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep In light of the USMA accepting him into their class, the receipt of a very important medal, and the governor's direct order to the state national guard to distinctly honor this man, I'm changing my position on this. This is no longer just another victim. -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Veggies: That award isn't unique here as it was given to two of the other shooting victims as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Sounds like an other stuff doesn't exist argument to me. If there are in-depth sources going over their accomplishments and accolades as well, those other two would merit their own articles. -- Veggies (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Merge – as the creator of the article, I am neutral about deletion. I do support merging some of the information into the main article, however. CookieMonster755✉ 18:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. (Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting) Fails WP:VICTIM and WP:ANYBIO and WP:MILPEOPLE. Maybe later it will, but not yet. See WP:CRYSTAL. Looks like we have a WP:SNOW situation here and this should be closed quick. The author of the article does not oppose a redirect. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• — 18.189.66.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment I think his heroic acts make him a notable enough person for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.66.52 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Above IP has not edited before. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Does the posthumous acceptance to West Point convey enough notability? What about if he is buried with full military honors? I think these events would be important enough to grant a stand alone article for this person. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-examination needed I agree. This AfD should be re-examined by everyone who took a position in light of this new and very unusual turn of events. -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry. If this proves to be the case, we just re-create the article. It just takes a few keystrokes. But for now, he does not meet the criteria. Perhaps if he were to be the youngest to receive a posthumous honor of some sort, but not until he does. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie. Nope. Some, and a lot more than "saving lifes during a crisis", but not enough. lets try SUSTAINEd and come back in June or July After the academic year ends and see if he is notable. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Over a thousand people are prehumously accepted into West Point each year then actually attend, many graduating into lifelong distinguished careers, sometimes saving thousands of (or countless) lives. All this extra work isn't enough for the vast majority to get Wikipedia articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

^^^^ Word. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, let's not be in a WP:RUSH to delete/recreate articles. Wikipedia does not have a time limit. If this article is delete, well, it is deleted. In that event, we can reexamine notability guidelines and recreate the article as needed, or leave it as a redirect if consensus is that he is not notable in the future. We are not a crystal ball. CookieMonster755✉ 03:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We are not a crystal ball, which an excellent reason to wait for the notability, along with stuff like editor time spent in mainspace, editor time spent at AFD, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't about "work". It's about notability conveyed by playing a significant role in a major event and later publicly recognized through less-than-ordinary accolades. And all of this documented by multiple reliable sources. That satisfies the notability requirements for me. -- Veggies (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Was it significant? He gave his life to contribute to the death toll, like the others did, then may have stopped it from going higher. Even if he actually did, and 21 (or so) people died instead, the overall event article wouldn't be significantly different. A "significant role", as I understand it, is one that majorly alters the event. The shooters themselves get rightly considered, by that ONEVENT clause, though even they (who made it happen) are usually denied articles after the arguments. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Victims. Wang is a hero who saved many lives during the shooting, but he unfortunately does not meet notability requirements. I would recommend redirecting back to the victims section of the shooting article, which contains some information on Wang. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Peter Wang saved lives and is rightly being honoured. He is now a household name. All the delete voters here should show up when we try to delete pages on pageant queens who get routine coverage for one event. Wikipedia is screwed up in it's priorities when we keep pages on people who manage to win a looks based contest and delete pages on heros that saved who knows how many lives. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  And 3 months from now, he will still be remenbered? The systemic bias here is different, we have had terrorist attacks of this caliber in Asia and Africa come up to AfD (usually passsing). In this shooting - we have a few different spinoff articles - with a chance of survival at AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  We have had killings of 10 times as many people in Nigeria not only not get an article in Wikipedia, but get virtually no attention in the press in even much of Nigeria. Actually what we need to combat is the notion that someone who plays for 5 minutes in one game in a 3rd-rate "fully professional" football league is somehow default notable. There are people who ruled over large swaths of India in the 15th century who we lack articles on, and we lack articles on many current members of Ghana's national legislature, and the only reason we have an article on the highest ranking judge in Edo State is because she is a Mormon and I picked up mention of her in a Mormon publication. I would be surprised if any of the other roughly 30 states in Nigeria have articles on their most highest ranking judge, and I do not believe we have an article on even the predeccessor of Esohe Frances Ikponmwen. I have probably nominated more articles on beauty queens for deletion than anyone else, but just because policies that the general notability guideline are ignored and misapplied by a cabal that abvocates Wikipedia follow the coverage of the vapid class in parts of the media with a full level of geneflecture has won in some places, does not mean we should abandon actual guidelines on inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  He is now a household name. Citation needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Try searching Google or watching the news. 1000% more press coverage than the winner of Miss USA this year. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody in my fairly well-informed family knew the name until I asked them about it, so I guess they're in the wrong households. They probably heard it on the news, but who has the memory capacity to remember every name that gets mentioned on the news? Not I. Similarly, Google hits are not a measure of household-nameness. Donalds Trump and Duck are household names. Let's just say you were using the term imprecisely and hyperbolically, and leave it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong delete Being a Westpoint graduate is not a sign of notability, so being accepted into West Point in a hallow honor to a dead person, is not at all the sort of honor that conveys notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

He's not notable because he's been accepted to West Point. He's notable for playing a significant role in a major event and being publicly recognized at the some of the highest levels of both the federal and state governments for his efforts. And this acknowledgement of what he did is presented in ways that are not ordinary. How many people are posthumously accepted into West Point? I don't know but it's certainly fewer than those that are while alive for ordinary academic or athletic accomplishments. -- Veggies (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Veggies, I am happy to agree with you on this one, and I am puzzled that John Pack Lambert would miss such an obvious point. John Pack Lambert, maybe you think this event was significant? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as per the other above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This turn of events changes nothing, I participated in an AfD on an article about an author who published a single book, his article was deleted. People trying to pull the 'guilt strings' to get people to change their opinions won't sway people from the guidelines of this encyclopedia, my vote and opinion still stands as above. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  I would like to remind you that your comment above can be taken as an attack on other users and should not be used as an argument against deletion. I would recommend that you are cautious in how you word your comments when they are directed at other users. Lepricavark (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Legacypac: I would like to remind this user that his comments above can be taken as an attack on other users and should not be used as an argument against deletion. I would recommend that you are cautious in how you word your comments when they are directed at other users. Wikipedia has tons of articles, we cannot curate them all but what is important is that we follow guidelines when we can. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Really?? - I'm noting that there is a very uneven application of notability guidelines. I did not even vote to keep this page but I will be citing this deletion discussion in the future when discussing some far less notaboe people. ie Person X received far less press coverage than Peter Wang who had their article deleted as a ONEEVENT. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This is, frankly, disgraceful. There is no serious argument that the subject's extensive coverage falls short of basic GNG requirements. The nominator gave no policy or guideline-based reason for deletion, just a hopelessly vague "not notable enough" and the limp cognate equivalent of WP:OSE. Most of the delete !votes aren't actually based in the guidelines they invoke -- for example, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a ban on articles on people notable in part for the manner of their death, and citing it without further analysis is just handwaving, deserving no more weight than just-not-notable statements. I have no idea why so many editors have such enthusiasm for expunging coverage of a person who has actually done something admirable and received significant coverage for it -- certainly more than the average commenter here will accomplish over their entire lifetime -- while having no qualms about devoting significant space to Khloe Kardashian and Mrs Eric Trump. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and will likely result in justifiably negative media coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Appeal to shame, very nice. Where's the policy basis for that argument? Where's the policy that says our content decisions should consider how they might be seen by the media? "Not notable enough" is a policy-based reason for deletion and it needs no further explanation for experienced editors. The nominator can hardly be expected to prove the absence of notability (you can't link to insufficient RS coverage), the onus is on you to prove its existence. And finally, your interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL is not supported by NOTMEMORIAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Where in NOTMEMORIAL does it say anything like "no one can be notable based in part on the manner of their death"? You;re just making that up out of whole cloth. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Khloe Kardashian and Mrs Eric Trump are both important figures. Mrs Trump is a TV producer who also regularly attends whitehouse events and Ms Kardashian is a famous model and TV personality, who is known around the world. I'm wondering whether you are following Wikipedia guidelines on impartiality. Furthermore, are you an editor who upholds the guidelines of this encyclopedia, or an editor who repeatedly clashes with administrators when they don't get their own way? I suspect the latter based on your signature. Media will not cover this, they very rarely give a damn about what happens on Wikipedia. If an article on an author who has published media and books has had their article deleted, what grounds can you possibly keep this article on. Wikipedia follows a policy of consensus and it will not be affected by your own personal agenda whatever that may be. Good Day to you sir. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per Icewhiz and others. Main article already contains an 85-word paragraph almost completely dedicated to Wang's memory—that's 37% of the prose in a Victims section about 17 dead and 14 wounded/injured—and I feel that's enough per weight and balance. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  85 words on Peter Wang. 6000 words on Khloe Kardashian. That's appropriate wight and balance? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  I had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of 6000 words on Khloe Kardashian, and I am not going to alter my arguments to conform with whatever case you cherry-pick as a "but what about X?" argument. There is ALWAYS something one can point to in that manner, which is why you will NEVER see me do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely keep it, he was a hero that saved many lives, although you mericans don't care about gun deaths since you have so many mass shootings, that doesn't mean this Chinese person Peter Wang doesn't care, his selfless actions during the shooting saved many lives, as said in the BBC news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

He wasn't a Chinese person. He was born in Brooklyn and grew up in Florida. But thanks for your policy-free comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I started the AfD and voted delete, I'm not American so don't make wide sweeping judgements. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello mandrus I know you have a lot of time just hanging out here, ready to write a rebuttal for every comment posted on this page, because I see you are trying your very best to get Peter Wang's page deleted. Perhaps you should find something else to do with your time, like watch Star Trek or Star Wars or swing around your replica lightsaber while making some buzzing noises from your mouth. You already made your point multiple times that you want this article deleted for no good reason, other people here do get tired you camping out here posting ASAP and having to read your negative comments over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We invite you to learn something about Wikipedia policy and guidelines, both content- and behavior-related, before commenting further. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I have warned the user about their attacks against others over on their talk page and also warned them about assuming bad faith. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've warned them a bit stronger. I have no patience with IPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Close A large portion of this AfD discussion has become a minority of users attacking other users for their opinions and forcing those users to defend themselves. I propose this discussion ends quickly in order to prevent this escalating. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  The editor who's posted the most overt personal attacks here is you. Now that editors have begun resisting your dreadful proposal, you want to short-circuit discussion even as the evidence for notability -- for example, the piece in today's New York Times -- continues to grown. In light of your brief edit history, youyr facility with Wikipedia procedures and tropes, and your apparent lack of veracity, I think it's fair to infer that you're a returning sockpuppeteer-troll who should be dismissed out of hand. This certainly isn't auitable for speedy closure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have warned the above user about his attacks and accusations yet he has failed to stop so I have messaged an administrator to discuss his conduct. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And if you do a search for the name mandrus on this page, you will see it highlighted many times, it proves that he is a problem (maybe they are the same user?) that is causing the bickering among us people who are having a rational conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, sad as it is, NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: It wont make a difference here, but the policy WP:BLP1E applies to those who are living. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:BDP BLP policy actually still applies to recently deceased individuals, including BLP1E - and in any event we have the parallel WP:BIO1E.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - What bothers me most is the fact that this article was moved out of redirect at 06:01, 20 February 2018‎, and placed up for AfD at 12:07, 20 February 2018. I don't expect anything meaningful to come out within a 6 hour timeframe which is why AfD should be held off until these big events cool down. That being said, yes the subject fails per WP:TOOSOON and possibly WP:BIO1E. I was going to go with "Weak Keep" until I saw that he was one of three who was awarded the ROTC Medal for Heroism posthumously. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per unique notability combination of his role in saving lives, posthumous acceptance to West Point, awarding of the Army Medal of Heroism, and general media coverage. I'm seeing some parallel in this to Cassie Bernall. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's an ROTC medal, not a US Army medal. Rather different thing. Note that per WP:SOLDIER we don't have articles even on most adults awarded medals; only those who receive their country's highest gallantry award or multiple lower awards. Someone awarded the US Army equivalent, the Soldier's Medal, wouldn't be anywhere near the required standard for inherent notability. The coverage is typical for someone who's just died and who did something courageous. No more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Note that my vote specifically listed the combination of those things, not specifically one. Additionally, the article ROTC Medal for Heroism specifically states that the medal is awarded by the US Army. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not just "an ROTC medal", nor is it "not a US Army medal". It's, in fact, the highest Army (yes, Army!) medal awarded exclusively to ROTC candidates. Add to this the unusual circumstances that it was awarded for and the range of reliable sources that have covered this award as well as personal recognition by a state governor and it's more than enough to justify notability for a standalone article. -- Veggies (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • ROTC Medal for Heroism would not confer notability for WP:SOLDIER(1). It isn't close to being " their nation's highest award for valour". It is a service specific medal, and is roughly equivalent to Soldier's Medal which is not even close to the Medal of Honor. ROTC medals may be fairly rare - mainly since ROTC members for the most part are not involved in action.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a proper site for a memorial. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given these recent developments (the West Point admission, the Army's Medal of Heroism), on top of the notability of the event and the noteworthines of the individual actions, keep, with a big thank you to Veggies. In fact, "keep per Veggies". Drmies (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually Drmies I made some of those points first so I would also like to be thanked ;). But thanks to Veggies for continuing to push it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You got it. Thanks Mr. Ernie! Drmies (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete WP:1E, redirect to the shooting article. Minor role in a larger, notable event. Sorry, but it is worth a sentence or two at the parent article at most. ValarianB (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL seem pretty clearly applicable here. He deserves a paragraph in the main article for sure, especially in light of the honours he's been given, but since he died he's pretty much never going to be notable for any other event. No other mass shooting article has spawned spin-off articles for its victims. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Your last point is not true. See Cassie Bernall for starters. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• You're joking, right? Jamie Bishop, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin Granata, Liviu Librescu, G. V. Loganathan, Cassie Bernall, and Victoria Leigh Soto are all examples that can be found with just a cursory examination. -- Veggies (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone proposes deleting those, put me down for a Delete in all but Librescu (prehumously distinguished) and Bernall (posthumously central to a spin-off story studied on its own merits). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

User Veggies makes an excellent point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - 1E, NOTMEMORIAL (yes, I just re-read it), etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and cover him at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. All this fresh news coverage in the past week is WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we need secondary coverage over time to show that he is truly notable. If high quality secondary coverage emerges in the months to come, this biography can be rewritten at that time. Participants in this debate on both sides should avoid squabbling and attacking those who disagree. It is unseemly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to the shooting article, where he is already sufficiently covered. Lepricavark (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - My 92-year-old mom !votes Keep, saying we could "be a little generous". That's as good as some of the arguments here, if the closer wants to count it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a joke, right? Natureium (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

— Mandruss' mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete even with the action taken by West Point. Still not notable enough to deserve his own article separate from the shooting page itself. He deserves to have a section on that page, though. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I would think a section for him would be appropriate if it is decided to merge the article. CookieMonster755✉ 19:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect and Partial Merge I propose that a new section is created on the article about the shooting itself about the subject of this article wherein we include a re-wording of "Death and Funeral" and include the text from the "Legacy" section. I cannot justify this remaining as an independent article however as it does not satisfy notability guidelines due to Notability not being temporary Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (edit conflict × a bunch) per Drmies and Veggies and (sweet meatballs I'm agreeing with them) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a guideline forbidding writing about people who died, and as for WP:BIO1E here are a whole series of articles we have on individuals notable only for having played a [insert value judgement here] role in a terrorism incident in which they died: Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Cassie Bernall, Orio Palmer, LeRoy Homer Jr., Robert Stevens (photo editor), David Gunn (doctor), Melissa Doi, Eamon McEneaney, Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller (shooting victim), Sandra Lee Scheuer, William Knox Schroeder, Victoria Leigh Soto; it's not difficult to find others, just look at Victims of the September 11 attacks (for example; there are many more of these categories). And before anyone cries WP:OSE, that is the entirety of the nominator's argument, that more notable people don't have articles so this person shouldn't either. Is the fact that this individual's notability (or any of these individuals' notability) derives from the manner of their death tragic and regrettable? Absolutely it is, but that makes no difference to the writing of an encyclopedia. The subject meets GNG as indicated by detailed, focused secondary source coverage, and that is the only criterion that matters. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you truly make some great points with lots of evidence to back it up. I like that. And, if the Peter Wang page gets deleted then so should every article linked above (and more should be found out) be hunted down and marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, IP editor, you are wrong. Each of those other biographies should be evaluated on its own merits and I agree that some of them should be deleted or merged. However, the chance that Todd Beamer will be deleted is nil. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Many of those articles he cited were evaluated on their merits by AfD discussions (some more than once) and found to be valid. -- Veggies (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'd just like to clarify that someone else wanted the AfD discussion and I just happened to nominate it before them. You have provided some excellent evidence to back up your view however my opinion will stand as a merge. Just out of interest however, this one article, seems like it would also be worth an AfD discussion, the various other articles you listed however are much more extensive than this particular article. However I am unlikely to get into another AfD discussion so soon after this one. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You'd need to AFD all the Kent State victims in that case. I think you'd have a hard time getting any of them deleted, given the significant impact that their untimely deaths had in the USA. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You've actually hit the nail on the head there sir, you are right in saying the Kent State Victims had a significant impact, however individual impact and group impact are different. The victims of this shooting collectively have a large and notable impact which this one individual does not. One of the victims does not tell the whole story or influence a country to change, it is their collective group which makes the difference if that makes sense. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In the scenario referring to the Kent State Victims, I would actually merge information into a larger main article called Kent State Victims and redirect, that way all the relevant information is preserved. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Does WP:CCC apply to site-wide unwritten community consensuses, such as how we interpret and apply a necessarily vague content policy such as BLP1E? If it does, I submit that rationales such as yours kill CCC for such consensuses. You can't have both that kind of CCC and site-wide consistency—they are entirely incompatible because we could never implement consensus changes site-wide overnight. You have to choose the lesser evil, and I choose inconsistency and evolution over consistency and stagnation. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It's probably pointless me saying this, and I acknowledge I am equally as culpable as many of you, but can we please just have our opinions without everyone going 'you mericans don't understand this' or 'my mom says this', we're here to get a consensus and not argue like kids on a playground. I know we all have different views but we're all going to get more angry if we start targeting each other (again myself included). I regret if I myself have caused any hurt feelings over the issues raised in this article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• limited merge to the main shooting article as all his notability revolves around the incident. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. He's undeniably a hero, but unfortunately he is not independently notable to have his own article. Maybe if he becomes individually notable like other school shooting victims (Rachel Scott, for instance), then he should have an article, but as of now, redirecting seems fine. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Poorly articulated reason for deletion, article subject easily clears WP:N and WP:RS on the weight of its own citations, let alone the article which is fairly well fleshed out. Proceeding commentators should be aware that Wikipedia not being a memorial would be a reason for this article to be deleted IF it had no coverage. This one does. Does ill-thought-out consensus override policy? 184.167.60.170 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Just more editors falling for the recentism trap -- as usual for news. None of these secondary arguments -- West Point or the posthumous award -- actually escape WP:BLP1E. Those are both biproducts of one event he unfortunately is going to be remembered for, but they can/should easily be explained in the main article. Yes I understand he is a hero but no one is doing this boy any justice with an article focused mainly on his death.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone should write an essay detailing when a BLP1E is and isn't acceptable. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As it's a policy, this advises it should be followed "normally". So, any time there's no common sense excuse for abnormality. When sense is perhaps not common, we argue, then accept what is. Is that specific enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E applies to living people only. Wang is dead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See? Common sense excuse. Now we say we meant WP:ONEVENT, and things proceed "normally". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Nope - see WP:BDP - BLP policy applies to recently deceased. We have WP:BIO1E for dead people in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Wang's actions have established his own notability, along with the honors he received afterwards. Keep the page as is and let's discuss this AfD again in two weeks. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; nonsensical debate. Subject fulfills WP:GNG easily, which is enough for Wikipedia. Moreover, subject also satisfies WP:ANYBIO easily since that policy establishes that a person is likely to be notable if he "has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Wang satisfies those conditions since he has received two significant honors: (1) the ROTC Medal for Heroism, the highest medal awarded by the Army ROTC, and (2) a posthumous admittance to West Point, which according to The Washington Post and many other sources, is "very rare." Furthermore, Wang also satisfies WP:BIO1E because "media coverage of both the event and the individual's role" has "grown larger." Even more so, the event is "highly significant and the individual's role within it is a large one" since Wang can be easily singled out in contrast to others involved in the event. In addition, he also satisfies WP:VICTIM since, as a victim, Wang had "a large role within a well-documented historic event." His "role" is considered "large" because his actions have obtained significant exclusive coverage and because within the context of the event itself Wang's actions had a significant impact (by saving several lives). The event is also a "well-documented historic event" because according to The New York Times it was "one of the deadliest the shooting in modern American history." Finally, contributors are reminded that WP:TOOSOON is an essay and thus not policy, that WP:SOLDIER is a failed proposal and thus not policy, and that WP:BLP1E is for biographies of living people which does not apply to Wang because he is dead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

His role has "large" coverage, if you look at it as a standalone thing. But relative to the coverage the whole shooting or its main player have, it's just rather larger than Meadow Pollack's. With or without either (or both and one more), it'd still be the deadliest one. Wang could only be the star if Cruz was never around and if Cruz wasn't around, Wang would just be an obscure Florida kid (for now, at least). They're intertwined, historically, so there's no escaping this relative smallness. He'll only get smaller the longer Cruz lives to gain headlines. It's not a happy ending, but it's the correct one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Some parts can be merged with Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but Wang is not independently notable. PvOberstein (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If we gave a Wikipedia article for everyone who had attained a military honour (i.e. medal) we should all rush to create articles on every World War Veteran who obtained a medal for their bravery and courage. I acknowledge that this is a tragedy, but would this article have ever been created if it wasn't for this tragic incident itself? I don't believe this is simply a discussion of delete or keep, but rather a discussion of what information should be kept. I wonder whether there is enough information to create a new article that specifically covers the victims and their impact rather than focusing on articles for individuals. The football coach for example shielded students from bullets and died, yet he has not received an article just for this. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  You've raised several strawmen in your post. To answer your question would this article have ever been created if it wasn't for this tragic incident itself, well, of course not, and neither would many of our articles that cover tragic events exist had those events not occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think the war veterans comparison is good, there is a colossal number of them and one expects some war veterans to be highly decorated but there aren't many teenagers who risked and lost their lives to protect others in something like the worst high school shooting in US history. Had the shooting not happened he wouldn't have been notable but the main article wouldn't have been created either so I think of it as pointless whatifism. Some other editor pointed out similar articles on people whose sole claim to fame is being murder victims, some did heroic stuff in their last time some did not so it seems to me that we don't follow WPs consistently and some objections aren't even WPs but essays. I think your idea of an article on victims is terrific and fresh but the most notable ones certainly could or should get their own article. I mean, we have a superfluous number of articles on reactions from other countries when tragedies happen like terrorist attacks and that is pure thoughts and prayers ad neauseam of no to little encyclopedic worth whatsoever! --Killuminator (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak keep As some other guy pointed out, there's plenty of articles on people whose sole claim to fame is being murder victims. There's also a lot of somewhat obscure articles on people who committed suicide and kidnapping victims. They were very notable news stories when they happened but IMHO some should have been deleted. I think we need to adress some of those as well. Now having said all this, I'm in favor of keep but accent is on weak. --Killuminator (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Only known for his actions and death in the Parkland Massacre with no prior notability. Anything pertinent in this article can be merged into the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This kid deserves a wikipedia page he was accepted into westpoint and now he cant go because of a sick f.ck (excuse my language) or there should be a page for all the victims and about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkekin (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – he may "deserve" a Wikipedia page, but articles are based on policy. CookieMonster755✉ 22:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – while not policy, consider that the page got 17,000 views in one day. CookieMonster755✉ 23:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just above you mention that "articles are based on policy" yet you throw out this statistic which is utterly meaningless in determining whether this article meets said policies. Of course something that happens a week ago will get page views but the encyclopedia is not a popularity contest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please re-read my comment. Thank you! CookieMonster755✉ 05:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The special pleadings to save this article are ridiculous. Awards that would not make the living notable do not in any way add to the dead being notable. This whole article is a violation of the principals of not news and not memorial. Wikipedia does not exist to memorialize people. It also is not meant to be an Amero-centric project, something that an awful lot of commentors here forget. This so clearly violates the policies on one event notability, I am shocked this discussion has lasted so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Limited Merge This poor lad's notability is due to the incident that caused his untimely death, and, while I am sympathetic to those who would have his page kept, under WP:BIO1E, I'm afraid it doesn't pass muster. Javert2113 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially per Johnpacklambert. No conceivable notability except for his death; but his death also was not individually notable, but only as part of the event. There's pthing worth merging except the name/. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep There is sufficient notability in my view from the combination of coverage of his actions leading to his death and the unusual honors accorded posthumously. The honors themselves wouldn't be notable as many receive them but them being awarded posthumously to a JROTC high school freshman is undoubtably so. The combination of these is unique and broadly covered, worth inclusion. I'm not sure if the article disambiguation title is the most appropriate but don't have a better suggestion to offer currently. 73.228.65.56 (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 73.228.65.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment – please note that the above IP's only edit has been to this page. Canvassing is not allowed. CookieMonster755✉ 05:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to the article on the event - Per most of the delete/redirect comments above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect – to the article about the event. Does not seem to be interdependently notable from any of the other victims of the tragedy. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect - WP:TOOSOON. Unless this kid becomes a national martyr for his actions during the shooting (or some sort of notability), I think we should hold off on having a separate article for him. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Its a disgrace to the trategy. This boy is a hero and a medal of honor medailist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.30.80 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 62.152.30.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Please note that Peter Wang HAS NOT been awarded the Medal of Honor.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Partial Merge We obviously don't need a stand-alone article here. He became known as a heroic figure during the shooting. Keep the important stuff and merge them with the article about the shooting. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Clearly fails WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This page is being bombarded by canvassing IP addresses, I feel that canvassing IP addresses should be warned about their activities. Additionally it would be most helpful if users followed the template for tagging canvassing users than replying saying that they have made no prior edits. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Do you think it is canvassing or just due to the current high traffic of the subject's page? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: It's always called Canvassing if an IP address contributes to an AfD as their first/only edit. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, canvassing is a user recruiting other users to support their position in a discussion, and if you're going to accuse users of having been canvassed you should come up with some evidence before someone points out that it's a personal attack to do so otherwise. Oh, oops. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Because if you do have evidence, then the user doing the canvassing will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: What I meant to say was Single Purpose Accounts, not Canvassed account. Apologies for the confusion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Are you kidding me? Fails every notability guideline that exists on Wikipedia. Most assuredly WP:BLP1E.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge and Redirect to Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Victims. Clearly worthy of coverage, the question is "how much" and "where". So many delete !voters above appear oblivious to the fact that failing notability does not mean deletion if there is a merge target. BLP does not apply, not that there are any BLP issues apparent. There is a rush of coverage at the moment, the coverage has not settled, it may take a year, the decision can wait that long. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there is no "rush of coverage at the moment". There has been nothing new about Wang for four days. The news cycle has moved on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP. How many people listed in Wikipedia risked their own lives to save many others at the tender age of 15? This remarkable heroism deserves its own place in history. It is especially important to highlight Peter Wang's heroism to help combat the bias in the society against Asian American boys and men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianhelenyang (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge and Redirect Peter Wang's notoriety is increasing by the day, along with all the victims and survivors, but especially him, in light of his personal story and reported actions during the incident. May I suggest that this decision would benefit from a little more time than usual? Say, at least 90-120 days? There is a growing constituency among the public who wish to learn about Mr Wang and other victims with a particularly noteworthy story. I suggest some of the calls to delete this entry are politically biased. More details about the law enforcement response to the shooting have emerged, making the actions of victims who may have saved lives more significant in this context. In a free open society important matters, however difficult, are discussed without fear or favor. Wikipedia has a role in providing encyclopedic information to assist. EvidenceFairy (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NSOLDIER. Chetsford (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments already presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hogg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Gonzalez and per examples of other such names submitted above by Ivanvector. Subject has significant media coverage (as of this writing, there are 24 inline cites under "References") and certainly meets the criteria for inclusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG. I think WP:BLP1E provides the strongest argument for deletion, but arguably Peter is notable not just for his actions during the shooting but also for the honors received afterward. Obviously the distinction between one or two events can be subjective, but I don't see the harm in erring on the side of keep in this case. You can't really objectively put everyone on a linear scale of notability, so saying that some "more notable" people got deleted is useless because you can easily find people "less notable" who didn't get deleted. Each article should be judged on its own merits. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• the alleged "canvassing" is by the nom who slapped an AFD tag at the top of a high traffic article. People come to the page to learn more, see the AfD tag, and voice their displeasure at the idea of deleting something they sought out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

I have invited the above user to clarify their comment, however, they started a tirade of inappropriate conduct, therefore I have decided the best option is for to to clarify here, that I did not add the canvassing template and additionally, I was referring to SPAs not canvassers, if the above user would like to clarify their comments (which they have used on other AfD discussions), then I invite them to do so with the correct conduct. Until this time however, I will not communicate with the above user. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC) ChieftanTartarus, Legacypac did not start any tirade. You started the whole thing by removing the comment and calling it a personal attack when it does not attack you. Your comment above saying they started a tirade of inappropriate conduct is a personal attack and should be removed. ~ GB fan 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC) His tirade is referring to his conduct on his talk page which you haven't bothered to read. I'm at the end of my patience with this issue. If the user does not want to clarify as I have invited them to do so above (which is apparently called a personal attack, which I find frankly laughable), then they can stop communicating with me and you can also leave me alone. Your claim that I have committed a personal attack is an attack and should be removed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:SIGCOV. Other arguments are subsidiary, since significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - The standard for inclusion is coverage in secondary sources, and this article has that, just as the articles on the Victims of the September 11 attacks who died on 9/11 do. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Most of the 'keep' opinions have been appeals to emotion and/or WP:OSE. That's no way to run an encyclopedia. -Jordgette [talk] 23:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect and Merge as with the arguments above, I am not opposed to merging the page with Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Though undoubtedly he actions were heroic, I think a page might be too early. I would merge/redirect, as the main article already has a paragraph regarding him and the other two ROTC students. Perhaps if his story becomes as notable as Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott's, we can revisit, but for now I think a simple merge or redirect is fine. However, if the argument comes to a decision of stay, I am not opposed to it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note: To those saying BLP1E, he is not a BLP. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP, and BLP1E, apply to the recently-deceased as well as the living. It's explicitly noted on the page both in the lead, and in the later BLP1E section. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

♠PMC is right. Recently deceased people are still included in the BLP policy. CookieMonster755✉ 04:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP: Is this seriously a discussion? There are plenty of notable sources on him. He is all over the news and is clearly notable. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• But we aren't the news...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Victims per WP:BIO1E. I don't believe that the AfDs of other students, such as Emma Gonzalez, are applicable here. The latter is much better known for her activism, vs being a victim. If 6 months down the road there are sources showing sustain coverage than the article could be restored. Right now it's basically a WP:MEMORIAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments regarding the person's notability.  Kou Dou 13:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability execpt the shooting event and that makes a fail per WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect while the loss of life is tragic, I totally support K.e.coffman's statement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep There is a lot of info about him in the news recently so it is good to have a page that consolidates that information 216.221.38.221 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)