Deletion of Peter Wang (cadet)

Comment: This is, frankly, disgraceful. There is no serious argument that the subject's extensive coverage falls short of basic GNG requirements. The nominator gave no policy or guideline-based reason for deletion, just a hopelessly vague "not notable enough" and the limp cognate equivalent of . Most of the delete !votes aren't actually based in the guidelines they invoke -- for example, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a ban on articles on people notable in part for the manner of their death, and citing it without further analysis is just handwaving, deserving no more weight than just-not-notable statements. I have no idea why so many editors have such enthusiasm for expunging coverage of a person who has actually done something admirable and received significant coverage for it -- certainly more than the average commenter here will accomplish over their entire lifetime -- while having no qualms about devoting significant space to Khloe Kardashian and Lara Trump|Mrs Eric Trump. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and will likely result in justifiably negative media coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Victims. The existence of other borderline-notable victim articles is |irrelevant, and GNG does not guarantee notability (this is something we need to get away from), especially when an article fails other tests such as  or . That's exactly the case here. Since all the coverage of this person is in the context of the event, that's where this content should go. Of course, this can change in the future if coverage is extended beyond the event, but I doubt that will happen, since he is unfortunately deceased
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE||WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: This poor lad's notability is due to the incident that caused his untimely death, and, while I am sympathetic to those who would have his page kept, under , I'm afraid it doesn't pass muster
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: What bothers me most is the fact that this article was moved out of redirect at '''06:01, 20 February 2018‎''', and placed up for AfD at '''12:07, 20 February 2018'''. I don't expect anything meaningful to come out within a 6 hour timeframe which is why AfD should be held off until these big events cool down. That being said, yes the subject fails per  and possibly . I was going to go with "Weak Keep" until I saw that he was one of three who was awarded the ROTC Medal for Heroism posthumously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: per nom. No notability execpt the shooting event and that makes a fail per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: ec|a bunch}} per Drmies and Veggies and (sweet meatballs I'm agreeing with them) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.  is not a guideline forbidding writing about people who died, and as for  here are a whole series of articles we have on individuals notable only for having played a insert value judgement here role in a terrorism incident in which they died: Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Cassie Bernall, Orio Palmer, LeRoy Homer Jr., Robert Stevens (photo editor), David Gunn (doctor), Melissa Doi, Eamon McEneaney, Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller (shooting victim), Sandra Lee Scheuer, William Knox Schroeder, Victoria Leigh Soto; it's not difficult to find others, just look at Victims of the September 11 attacks (for example; there are ''many'' more of these categories). And before anyone cries , that is the entirety of the nominator's argument, that more notable people don't have articles so this person shouldn't either. Is the fact that this individual's notability (or any of these individuals' notability) derives from the manner of their death tragic and regrettable? Absolutely it is, but that makes no difference to the writing of an encyclopedia. The subject meets GNG as indicated by detailed, focused secondary source coverage, and that is the only criterion that matters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:BIO1E||WP:OSE)

Comment: WP:1E and  seem pretty clearly applicable here. He deserves a paragraph in the main article for sure, especially in light of the honours he's been given, but since he died he's pretty much never going to be notable for any other event. No other mass shooting article has spawned spin-off articles for its victims
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per .  Other arguments are subsidiary, since significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Most of the 'keep' opinions have been appeals to emotion and/or . That's no way to run an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: Poorly articulated reason for deletion, article subject easily clears  and  '''on the weight of its own citations''', let alone the article which is fairly well fleshed out. Proceeding commentators should be aware that Wikipedia not being a memorial would be a reason for this article to be deleted '''''IF''''' it had no coverage. This one does. Does ill-thought-out consensus override policy? Special:Contributions/184.167.60.170|184.167.60.170
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: per . Only known for his actions and death in the Parkland Massacre with no prior notability. Anything pertinent in this article can be merged into the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: to Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Victims per . I don't believe that the AfDs of other students, such as Emma Gonzalez, are applicable here. The latter is much better known for her activism, vs being a victim. If 6 months down the road there are sources showing sustain coverage than the article could be restored. Right now it's basically a 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: Subject fulfills  easily, which is enough for Wikipedia. Moreover, subject also satisfies  easily since that policy establishes that a person is likely to be notable if he "has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Wang satisfies those conditions since he has received two significant honors: (1) the ROTC Medal for Heroism, the highest medal awarded by the Army ROTC, and (2) a posthumous admittance to West Point, which according to ''The Washington Post'' and many other sources, is "very rare." Furthermore, Wang also satisfies  because "media coverage of both the event and the individual's role" has "grown larger." Even more so, the event is "highly significant and the individual's role within it is a large one" since Wang can be easily singled out in contrast to others involved in the event. In addition, he also satisfies  since, as a victim, Wang had "a large role within a well-documented historic event." His "role" is considered "large" because his actions have obtained significant exclusive coverage and because within the context of the event itself Wang's actions had a significant impact (by saving several lives). The event is also a "well-documented historic event" because https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting.html according to ''The New York Times'' it was "one of the deadliest the shooting in modern American history." Finally, contributors are reminded that  is an essay and thus not policy, that  is a failed proposal and thus not policy, and that  is for biographies of ''living'' people which does not apply to Wang because he is dead. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BIO1E||WP:VICTIM||WP:TOOSOON||WP:SOLDIER||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per above arguments regarding notability, especially regarding  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: Clearly fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:BLP1E||WP:NSOLDIER)

Comment: Just more editors falling for the |recentism trap -- as usual for |news. None of these secondary arguments -- West Point or the posthumous award -- actually escape . Those are both biproducts of ''one event'' he unfortunately is going to be remembered for, but they can/should easily be explained in the main article. Yes I understand he is a hero but no one is doing this boy any justice with an article focused mainly on his death
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . I think  provides the strongest argument for deletion, but arguably Peter is notable not just for his actions during the shooting but also for the honors received afterward. Obviously the distinction between one or two events can be subjective, but I don't see the harm in erring on the side of keep in this case. You can't really objectively put everyone on a linear scale of notability, so saying that some "more notable" people got deleted is useless because you can easily find people "less notable" who didn't get deleted. Each article should be judged on its own merits. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting) Fails  and  and . Maybe later it will, but not yet. See . Looks like we have a  situation here and this should be closed quick. The author of the article does not oppose a redirect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:VICTIM||WP:ANYBIO||WP:MILPEOPLE||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SNOW)

Comment: and cover him at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Per  and . All this fresh news coverage in the past week is , and we need secondary coverage over time to show that he is truly notable. If high quality secondary coverage emerges in the months to come, this biography can be rewritten at that time. Participants in this debate on both sides should avoid squabbling and attacking those who disagree. It is unseemly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:PRIMARYNEWS)

Comment: Are you kidding me? Fails every notability guideline that exists on Wikipedia. Most assuredly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per '''''', which is policy. This ("otherwise low-profile") individual's role in the event was "substantial as indicated by persistent coverage". (Moreover, such coverage can justifiably be expected to keep persisting, because politics.) Keep also per '''''' policy: {{tq|"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)