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 procedural close. The last AfD closed 3 days ago, at least wait a little while before nominating again. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 03:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paddock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Article content is exclusively about 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and bio information that does not make the subject notable outside that event. Number of cited sources not related to that event: 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I submitted this unaware of the prior no-consensus outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock. No strong objection to a procedural close, although I don't know why we keep WP:BLP1E item 1 if it allows an article such as this one. The ONEEVENTness here couldn't be any clearer. I have asked Twinkle to warn idiot users like me about prior noms before they commit, we'll see if that goes anywhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is too much reliably sourced information on him to just be contained within the article for the event. Last AfD was closed 1 day ago. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alas, these AfDs never seem to succeed despite the fact such articles are clearly against guidelines. Should be closed. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear at all that they are against guidelines. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, for many other mass shootings, suspects who are not notable for actions outside the incident have Wikipedia articles separate from those of the incidents like Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik etc, with no nominations for deletion given to my knowledge. Given that these articles have not been challenged in this manner, I don't see any particular reason to delete the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, please. The previous AfD with no consensus ended just three days ago. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural closure. Apparently, the nominator did not know about the prior AfD, nor about its closure three days ago. Please try to do some legwork next time. Quote from relevant policy: If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections... Your source: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural closure per above. We can have this discussion again at a later date, but not right after the first ended. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close per the above. Its just to soon to be listing this article at AfD again. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mandruss: - to warn idiot users like me about prior noms - listed at the top of the article talk page. There are also user scripts that display previous noms at the top of article pages. -- GreenC 23:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew about the article talk page, I simply forgot because I don't do this a lot. The addition of a message to Twinkle would have saved me and others some time, would continue to save editor time forever (or as long as Twinkle and XfD exist), and would cost very little. That's all I'm saying. While we're trading tips, I didn't receive your ping because the valid ping and the valid signature have to be added in the same edit. Adding a ping later does nothing except to make your comment look like you pinged somebody. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Forgot to ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100% Keep-This issue has already been brought up last week and the decision was made for it to be kept. As I said back then, the guidelines for Wikipedia only say the subject has to be notable. It does not say "must be notable for several things." Paddock is responsible for the biggest mass shooting in US history with 58 deaths (not counting Paddock) and 489 injured people.-K-popguardian (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a BLP1E matter, since Paddock is dead. The relevant guideline, WP:BIO1E does not ban such articles but instead explicitly permits them in certain circumstances:

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

This event is "highly significant" and Paddock's role is clearly "a large one". The worldwide coverage already cited in the article meets the guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural closure - Way too soon for another AfD. HastyBriar321 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Issue has already been discussed. PvOberstein (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2017 (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.