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 delete‎. Redirect also. JBW (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Tarrant[edit]

Brenton Tarrant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is simply a repeat of the information (and wording) in Christchurch mosque shootings. Brenton Tarrant is known for just one action and is neither famous nor noteworthy. It is unlikely that anyone would search for Brenton Tarrant without finding his name on the Christchurch page in which case they would already have all the information that is on this page.

Please note that this is the second time that this article has been nominated for deletion. The first time was before any text had been added. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Tarrant.

Since this page is a redundant duplicate then I suggest Delete OrewaTel (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Terrorism, and New Zealand. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This page was a redirect to the event from February through June 2023, until and anon IP editor felt this perpetrator should get a stand-alone article. If there isn't enough true biographical depth, restoring that redirect would be in order. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of coverage, source 22, 30 to 33 seem the best. Rest is added coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore REDIRECT – Known only for one event, where his involvement is sufficiently covered. All sources mention him only in connection with that event. There is nothing encyclopedic in this article that isn't covered in the main article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Entirely pointless duplication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, for the reasons given above. He is notable in connection with a single event and the significant content is already covered in the main article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then redirect. WP:BLP1E applies here. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Cf. Martin Bryant and Anders Breivik, who have individual biographies even though separate articles exist about their crimes. However, some copy-editing could be done to minimize overlap between the biography and the crime article. Muzilon (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Muzilon, WP:OTHERSTUFF, is not a reason to vote keeping. TarnishedPath^talk 03:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Then see WP:WHENSPLIT. The Christchurch mosque shootings article is currently over the 9,000 words/60 kB prose threshold,[1] suggesting that the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Muzilon (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Daveosaurus's comment below. I suggest the facts you highlight make a stronger argument for trimming, not for devoting more time and resources to this individual who's notability is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 04:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What material do you propose to remove from the Christchurch article? Muzilon (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Perpetrator, just a quick review of the first two paragraphs reveals material about his family life growing up that is irrelevant to the shooting and material about a visit to a hospital because of a gun accident that is again irrelevant to the shooting. 50% of those two paragraphs could be trimmed and consolidated into one paragraph. That's just a quick review. However, I don't edit that article so I'll leave that to the good judgement of people that do. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest those details are probably necessary background, and strengthen the case for WP:SPINOUT. Muzilon (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. Anything sufficiently encyclopaedic about him belongs in that article anyway. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Articles about mass shootings generally do not need a separate article for the perpetrator, as it leads to problems with repetition and overlap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 09:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as he’s known for a single event only. Schwede66 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Tarrant has no notability independent of his crimes, which are covered in another article. Zarenon (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's more or less a copy and paste from the main article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Simply too big of an event and impact on society, too many victims for him to not have his own page. Everyone one else anywhere near that kill count has there own page Genberg47 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC) — Genberg47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and redirect as this person is known only for a single event.Marshelec (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2023 (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.