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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Eagan Holmes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James_Eagan_Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Holmes has no notability outside the shooting, the article on him needs to be deleted! The article is in Violation of WP:BLP1E the fact that he is the Sole Suspect of the Aurora 2012 Shooting makes him not eligible for a stand-alone article WP:BLP1E is equal to anybody alife or death! To my understanding and logic if a victim is not eligible for an article then the suspect is neither! Fox2k11 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) -- As Submitter of this AFD I don't know if possible but I like to declare that i Revoke the Submitting of this AFD and the article should stay! --Fox2k11 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Fox2k11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been discussed, and you (Fox2k11) have failed to read the discussions. Mark David Chapman has an article, and he is only known for killing John Lennon and reading the Catcher in the Rye. Why haven't you, Fox2k11, marked that for deletion, too? Thelema418 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid the other stuff exists arguments, they weaken your keep argument rather than support it. Ryan Vesey 05:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking anyone who wishes to mark this for deletion to be thorough in the exercise of what they are doing. Thelema418 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this particular issue is presented that way. Obviously, people are working on this article. Rather than posting commentary in the TALK section, this individual marked the article for deletion. It's RUDE, but I'll just vote to KEEP the article. Thelema418 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I start seeing people just throwing out Delete and Keep votes with "per the others" or are just simple Vote type comments I will place the template up top. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could as well ask why is there an article about Hitler, but not about the millions of people that died in the concentration camps. It's an emotional question that has no place when assessing the notability of something. After all, dying itself is not a notable act, since we all do it sooner or later, and getting killed by someone isn't either (at least most of the time). On the other hand, if you do something just horrible enough you will gain enough notoriety and notability to be the subject of books, movies, documentaries and, yes, Wikipedia articles. That's the way it is, and has been for thousands of years. You better deal with it, because neither you, nor anyone else on this planet can change it. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comparing Holmes with Hitler is just stupid Hitler is indeed Notably but Holmes is not! Fox2k11 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not compare Holmes with Hitler. I know very well that Hitler's pesence permeates history quite a bit stronger than Holmes', but that's totally besides the point I was trying to make. What I wanted to say was that argumenting from an emotional point of view like you did is totally useless when trying to evaluate the notability of anything, so you could as well have asked why is there an article about Hitler (certainly notable), but not the (mostly not notable) victims of his folly. It is a totally meaningless question in this regard. But ok, you say that Holmes is not notable, nor is any other criminal, but that is your point of view and in the big picture it does not matter, because notability is not a dependent of a single person, but those of many, though not necessarily of the majority.
Anyway, don't you think that saying no criminal should get an article on Wikipedia, even if he was or is the subject of continuous media coverage like Mark Chapman, is a little bit absolutist? I mean, certainly you would agree that a criminal who killed a million people by, say, detonationg a nuclear bomb in a major city should be the subject of his own article, even if he was notable for nothing else. And if you agree to that, you may excuse if I ask the question how many people has somebody to kill in your eyes to warrant his own article? If a million is enough, is 100,000 also? What about 1000, 100, or 10? Though, in the end the number doesn't really matter, as even a single murder can make you notable – certainly this is the case with Gavrilo Princip (ok, double murder), or Lee Harvey Oswald. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
No, my point is that it doesn't matter how many you killed if there is an article about the crime one has Commited it's fine when the perpetrator is mentioned there but why has there a full article of the perpetrator including what he did before and what his background are? is that Really Necessary? Fox2k11 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you think the social background of somebody who killed a million people would be irrelevant and not of interest and shouldn't be covered in detail? Then how do you think should we understand the motivation of anybody, if we disregard his life previous to his crime? Isn't it the purpose of a biography to get a fuller understanding of a person, to maybe find a hint somewhere in his personal history that might explain why he acted how he acted, did what he did? (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
sorry for my late reply was kinda busy.. I agree with what you said above but currently there is nothing about Holmes that would meet that criteria you stated above since not much is known about him what i wanted to say was is it really necessary to know what his childhood was or what he did years before the shooting? Fox2k11 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak on behalf of myself, of course, but yes, I would say that it is necessary to show what he did prior to the shooting, especially the most basic information, like where he went to school etc., should be present even in a remotely complete biography. And a lot of psychologists would be wasting their time trying to uncover the childhood of serial and mass murderers, if it weren't important in the context of their crimes. Knowning what a person went through in his life may help to understand why things went the way they did.(Lord Gøn (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Point Taken =) Fox2k11 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.
So, may I ask, why should we treat Holmes any different than all those other mass murderers and mass murder suspects? (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Just because one has a different view and opinion on an Article doesn't make one a "no brainer" any user on wikipedia has the right nominate an article for something (f.e. Deletion) this is why we have this discussion here! Fox2k11 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but in this case it should be an obvious "no brainer". The arguments for deletion are clearly erroneous. Afterwriting (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "any user on wikipedia has the right [to] nominate an article", even when they only have a two-week editing history and only edit articles related to the 2012 Aurora shooting. We are sooo democratic ... WWGB (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you started your Account with an fully Bloomed editing History? Yes My editing history is only about related articles

and just like any user who created an account in good faith started with something I will commit myself to an project once i find one I am interested to create or edit! if you have an issue with me you know where my talk page is ok? thanks!Fox2k11 (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 71.229.18.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds more like a reason to modify the article rather than delete it.Pritchard 00:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes thats right I started a Stub on "Jessica Ghawi" (see the talk page) and Raised Vailid points (sources) that she is like you say "stands apart from the crowd" but the stub has been reverted due to WP:BLP1E so i came to the conclusion that an article about the suspect falls into to the same "BLP1E" Rule but it Seems i either understand WP:BLP1E wrong or my sources are not enough (not valid) to notably lift her up from the crowd! Fox2k11 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More