Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet)

Peter Wang (cadet)

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Delete NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E exist for this type of thing. Blow the impact alarum. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, along with the other reasons.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid. No individual notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article didn't exist before shooting. Speed74 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete No lasting or significant impact outside of this event that would warrant an independent article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete as per the other above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]