Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seung-Hui Cho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy keep. I know that in the past I've been yelled at for closing AfD discussions too soon. However, I think that this one is an obvious speedy keep, due in part to the fact that the nominator is a single purpose account, and the rationale seems to be a big ball of WP:WAX. The article clearly asserts its subject's notability through scads of reliable sources, so I see no problem in closing this as a keep, non-admin style. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seung-Hui Cho

Seung-Hui Cho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

As with Robert A. Hawkins, he's an otherwise non-notable person who's sole notability is summed up in the article for the shooting spree. Beenturns (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC) — Beenturns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Speedy keep WP:WAX is not a criterion for deletion. I suspect a bad-faith nom and violation of WP:POINT. --Strothra (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Lets go ahead and delete Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth.....hell, lets delete every killer article while we are at it. Or we can leave one of the best edited and documented articles I have read on Wikipedia. STRONG KEEP. Bluefield (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, this man is not notable beyond the shooting spree. Just like many sports people are not notable beyond the sport they're playing. But if they meet WP:BIO, they are notable enough for Wikipedia. It doesn't say anywhere that there has to be more than one source of notability. This shooting spree is exactly what makes Seung-Hui Cho notable. Very notable. Obvious keep. AecisBrievenbus 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Covered by loads of third-party sources, he more than meets bio guidelines. Punkmorten (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as I think the nominator has an interesting point about the comparison with Robert A. Hawkins. This'll be speedily kept anyway no doubt.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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.