Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun-Kyung Cho

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 delete. --Ixfd64 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun-Kyung Cho

Sun-Kyung Cho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sister of Va. Tech killer Seung-hui Cho. Contested speedy; I think this one deserves a full AFD debate. See article talk page. NawlinWiki 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Her notability is established well past the level for WP:BIO. She is the subject, not just the source of multiple, independent reliable sources (see talk page). Her prominence and 'rising star' career has been described as a contributing factor in her brother's psychological make-up. Her success as the daughter of immigrants has been contrasted with the difficulties face by her brother. In addition, her eloquence has helped the world to sympathize with her family's predicament. Ronnotel 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Reading through the delete votes, I find few that directly address whether this article meets WP:BIO. The standard for inclusion is clear: it is whether she has been the subject of multiple independent reliable references, which I believe she has been. There is no exception for whether she was only made famous by being the relative of a mass murder, or whether she deserves to have privacy, etc. I sympathize with Ms. Cho and her family, however, I think by any fair interpretation of WP:BIO this article should remain. Ronnotel 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No notability beyond being a relative of someone infamous. She is a primary source about a legitimate article subject, not a legitimate article subject herself. Articles should not be written based on speculation that a subject may become famous in his or her own right, so unless she does Oprah and gets a book deal out of this, I say no dice. --Dynaflow 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to recreation should she become notable in the future. We'd have to be awfully careful not to contravene WP:BLP here, and to be honest I don't think she's notable enough in her own right yet that we should bother. Notability generally takes some time to develop; most people don't become notable overnight. We all know examples of relatives of killers or other criminals that have had a few minutes' attention only to slide back into their preferred obscurity. A few minutes' attention isn't enough to prove notability. --Charlene 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dynaflow Pete.Hurd 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Charlene. She works for the State Dept., so who knows what she could go on to do. For now, though, no real accomplishments that merit an article -- just an accident of birth. —GGreeneVa 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dynaflow. If Cho didn't commit the mass murder, would she still be on Wikipedia? I think not. Sr13 (T|C) 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - no but that's not the argument here - it's that she has become notable both through her actions and by how she may have been an influence in her brother's life. Ronnotel 03:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and bulk up Per WP:BIO, all arguments for deletion are based on subjective reasons. All the information comes from Time magazine New York Times, and others prime sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
• Delete. Grossly insensitive and inappropriate, and I am likely to speedy it very soon unless convinced otherwise by arguments much stronger than those here. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I take exception to your characterization. In fact I am very sensitive to the family's grief. However, by her actions Sun-Kyong has placed herself on the public stage by becoming a spokesperson for the family. She's been the subject of many reliably sourced articles. Can you explain why you think this is insensitive and inappropriate? Ronnotel 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that it's the presence of the article I find insensitive, rather than the subjective attitude of the contributors. Despite feeling compelled to make some statements, it's an involuntary notability and likely a fleeting one, and this article puts the focus very much in the wrong place. Given your reasonable comments I won't speedy it, however. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point and appreciate the thoughtful response. Ronnotel 03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per other delete comments. This article is pure recentism -- she was mentioned in every newspaper published today but that does not mean that she will continue to be the subject of public interest in the future. As a remote second choice, redirect and merge to the article about her notorious brother, who is likely to be the subject of public interest in the future. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Multiple sources, but kind of thin. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As Dynaflow, just a relative of someone infamous. She could achieve notability in her own right, but hasn't yet. Exposure is not notability. -- Mikeblas 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dynaflow. No justification for including information about someone who not only has not established notability, but may very well in fact be wanting to avoid the public spotlight after this horror. We should not forget that we are human beings and we should show empathy for fellow humans. Please let this woman have her privacy, as it is apparent that is what she wants. Khorshid 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Utterly unnecessary. --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable before this incident, not notable apart from this incident, and not asserted as such. Therefore her 'notability' such as it is is inseparable from the incident, and can be more than adequately addressed in the article on that incident. Shenme 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Relatives of well-known figures are almost never notable except in rare cases. Biggspowd 04:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per reasons in the essay WP:NOTNEWS. She is a private person and not notable, except for a relative who was notorious, like Hitler's sister. Edison 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Godwin! =D --Dynaflow 05:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Ronnotel. DickClarkMises 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable in any way, other than her relation to the psycho killer. Chris 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Hard to believe we're having this discussion at all. The sister is simply commenting what someone else has done. ACK Mikeblas: Exposure is not notability. Apart from that, a teeny bit of respect towards a person who has been involuntarily catapulted into the spotlights of the international media wouldn't hurt either. --Ibn Battuta 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - maybe mention her in the article on her brother, or recreate when she does become notable, but making a statement to the press and being the sister of a murderer do not constitute notability. Biruitorul 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - She is notable as a spokesperson and this should be given time to expand as the first victim of her brother Emily. Bnguyen 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, she is not notable and deserves whatever scraps of privacy she has left. For comparison, David Kaczynski actually turned in his brother the Unabomber and has written and spoken publicly about this decision. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• No, please delete this. Even if she would have preferred to keep her privacy, it would have been very difficult for her not to comment (especially as the parents apparently hardly speak English), and the press would no doubt have made her seem insensitive if she had declined doing that. But she is so far not known for anything else and does not deserve the punishment of a page on Wikipedia reminding everybody she ever meets that she is the sister of the Virginia Tech killer. (And please make sure this discussion does not get into Google's cache or the many sites copying Wikipedia content either.) If she ever becomes "notable" in her own right, I suppose the relationship is difficult to avoid, but that can be dealt with at that future time. Pharamond 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I will fully support this article's recreation should she ever become notable for anything other than being related to and making a statement about an infamous spree killer. Jeff Silvers 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Merge relevant info to the brother's and massacre's pages. Seung-Hui Cho is the place for content on his family and family's reaction to the massacre. - BanyanTree 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. It could be that her work in Baghdad will lead to her becoming N in her own right, but at present this page is as inappropriate as the page on Hitler's dog (which I'm about to incur the combined wrath of dog-lovers and nazis for by prodding). As it stands she has no reason to have her own page other than being catapulted into the public eye by something a relative's done, and I agree with all those above who say that it's horribly insensitive to have a page on her up which serves no use other than prurience and will probably become a vandalism target - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, she doesn't even work in Baghdad, but in "an annex near the department's offices in Washington". In case this is kept, I've sourced that.--Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally unnecessary and most certainly it's mere prescence (unless she does something notable on her own) violates WP:BIO. Yanksox 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary, although she can and should be mentioned in the article about her brother since she has made public statements regarding his actions. Otherwise I don't see the need for her to have a separate article. 23skidoo 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. She is not notable, and only is brought to attention through the mishaps brought about by her brother. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, according to Wikipedia's definition of notable at WP:BIO and WP:NOTE she's clearly notable. But that says more about what a mind-numbingly awful guideline notability is than it says about the appopriateness of this article. --JayHenry 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If it wasn't for her brother, would she still have an article? Being the sister of a murderer does not make someone notable. AgentPeppermint 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably speedily. Good grief. --BigDT (416) 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep if people don't agree with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, then they should try to have them changed. Unless they do, this article meets those requirements. -- Craigtalbert 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable in and of herself. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, just mentioning it in his brother's article suffice. --Pejman47 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable, shouldn't be given an article because of what her brother did--Daveswagon 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - She is only known by association, she has herself done nothing that meets the requirements for Wikipedia recognition. And the article's not even written in an encyclopedic fashion. A speedy delete is needed. --Mystalic 01:34, 23 April 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.