Deletion of Nidal Malik Hasan

Comment: A great deal of biographical information on Hasan is being disclosed (and will be disclosed) apart from the shooting. The amount of pre-shooting content is certain to ''overwhelm'' Fort Hood shooting. Hasan is going to become both the poster child for political correctness that gets innocent people killed, and a "victim" as well. The test of  is clearly passed based on evidence which has been disclosed regarding his terrorist sympathies and hostility to the United States Army
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Although this is  there is sufficient world wide coverage of this. My only problem with this article is BLP concerns that he has not been convicted in a court of law. w
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per , specifically per the section of the policy invoked by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to my mind, it's pretty clear it should be merged to Fort Hood shooting. He's known for |one event; Most of the material in this bio fits in there; the stuff about his childhood can be lost, as it is utterly unexceptional and has absolutely no incidence on this shooting. As to the Virginia Tech massacre, looking for precedents is a hard habit to break - there is a tendency here on WP |not to take other articles as precedents
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Media interest in and coverage of the suspect, as an individual, is substantial enough to warrant a spinoff article per . More material is likely to accumulate, and would overwhelm the main article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: there seems to be two major arguments against keeping this article, which I'll address in turn. First, , which states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". For the first part, I think we all agree that this is far from a routine event, as is the coverage. For the second, I'm going to tie it in with the second argument against keeping this article: , which says "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." Again, nobody is arguing about whether the event is significant. Given that this gentleman is the alleged perpetrator (I use alleged, since our legal system says that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law), his role is certainly significant. BLP1E gives the example of John Hinkley, which is apt. While  prevents me from predicting the future of his notability, I think that he meets the current standards as having persistant reliable coverage going above and beyond the event in question, that keeping the article is the right course of action
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Most certainly satisfies . Subject's life and biographical information about individual has received a significant amount of coverage in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: per Sandstein, Hunter Kahn, and SuperHamster. The subject-matter has reached a level of infamy that unequivocally meets or exceeds the requirements (and spirit) of both  ''("In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered.")'' and  ''("The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information.")''. &nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:SS)

Comment: The individual's role related to the event is such that a separate article is more than justified, it is appropriate. A lot of the coverage is focusing on Hasan and his role in the shootings, not just the shooting event itself. Per , it has reached the point of a separate article being the appropriate way to go
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: This person is only notable for |one event. It might warrant an article in the future when enough publications are made about this individual. For now though, delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20091123,00.html Clearly meets |notability criteria.   says, "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: poor nomination statement and there is relevant encyclopaedic information in this article that could be |merged into the event article rather than outright deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Merging (WP:MERGE)

Comment: Nominator doesn't seem to understand what  is about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I'm not convinced  applies here - while he ''is'' only notable for his role in this one event, that event is extremely notable and Hasan has become widely discussed in his own right. This article seems acceptable to me as spin-out article from the main Fort Hood shooting per ummary style. It may be that in future we find all the content here can be satisfactorily covered in one article, but for the time being I don't see any problem with having two. In particular, I don't agree that the existence of this article raises BLP problems by calling Hasan a murderer or similar - he already has been widely described as such by the mainstream media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:S)

Comment: I think  is a largely misused and misunderstood guideline, and this is an excellent example of how it should ''not'' be used. In any event,  clearly states "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered". The degree of significant of this event, and this individual's role in it, is massive, and thus I think an article on Hasan ''and'' the shooting is appropriate. To say Hasan is not notable beyond the shootings is as ridiculous to me as saying Charles J. Guiteau, Waleed al-Shehri or John Wilkes Booth shouldn't have articles because they aren't widely known beyond their respective events. My bigger concern is the one voiced by {{User|Martin451}}: that Hasan has not yet been convicted of anything, and thus there are potential BLP concerns. But given the fact that there is already clearly a ''large'' amount of scrutiny and attention being given to this article, I think any BLP violations that come up will be quickly disputed and addressed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: or '''obvious merge''' with Fort Hood shooting - no claim of notability beyond the shootings, clear-cut 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Per . More than enough information and coverage exists (and there will be more as time progresses) to warrant its own article. There is too much coverage and info to combine everything into the Fort Hood shooting article, and the subject is notable enough to be split-off
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per Bigtimepeace. One of the best AfD arguments I've ever seen. And, Gilisa,  does ''not'' apply to Mohamed Atta, as the "L" in "BLP1E" stands for "living", which is something that Atta has not been doing for the past eight years
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The most efficient way to give our readers the currently available information is to have an article on the shooting, which would include minimal information about the only suspect so far, and a separate bio article about him with more detail.  The  violation is to say that he might be acquitted and would therefore be of less interest.  As of right now he's the principal, indeed only, suspect, and the less cautious elements in the media are widely discussing him as "the shooter", not "the alleged shooter".  Therefore, many Wikipedia readers would want to know more about Hasan, the individual.  We should provide that information without stating that he ''is'' the shooter and without cluttering the main article with details about Hasan's life
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per . Uh...this is a pretty big deal, and he is the cause of this pretty big deal. The guidelines are clear. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)