Deletion of Stephen Paddock

Comment: per . The information is useful but can be covered elsewhere. He has no notability except for this one event
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: obviously per  not really sure why this is even debated
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1EVENT)

Comment: to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, per Abductive's reasoning. A classic case of . As the shooter here is deceased, there will be no more coverage of him outside of the one event he's notable for
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per ; most of the biographical information is already there
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: textbook 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I'm afraid Paddock is notable for a separate article. No one in this discussion has mentioned '''Charles Whitman''', the notorious "University of Texas tower shooting|Texas Tower sniper". I recall he was known solely for mass murder, yet he has a well-written biography.  prevails in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: per  - contrary arguments above tend to rely upon  or that he may be subject to significant coverage in the future to independently have an article in the future - #CRYSTAL
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:ATA)

Comment: Would you prefer not to have Paddock's bio in Wikipedia? It's sort of like having an article on World War II, and not having an article on Hitler because he has already been covered elsewhere. And ... no photo of course per Wikipedia:Non-free content. This entry was researched and created roughly at the same time as the expansion of section "Perpetrator" in the article 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Please look at timestamps. And, here's what  says: {{tq|In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Saw this coming. Yet another case for why we need to enforce  swiftly and effectively. This is a |content fork that has BLP issues (yes this can extend to recently deceased people) and he is known for one, unfortunate incident. Perhaps in the future, when his motives and state of mind can be analyzed -- by secondary sources, not news reports -- then he may have a claim for notability as an important case study
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per ; In time this guy might become culturally significant as others who committed significant acts. When that happens mentioning "Stephen Paddock" will invoke a social response. But he is not like that yet. He might just end up being "that guy who shot up a lot of people in Las Vegas." Wikipedia should not lead cultural trends, it should follow them
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: per . Unlike say, Anders Breivik or Nidal Malik Hassan who were arrested after their rampages and faced legal actions as a result, the perpetrator in this massacre is dead. There will not be any trial or any other sort of legal procedure that takes place regarding Padddock so it seems to me that this article is a pointless  and . What could be included here that could not be included in the Perpetrator section of the event's article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:DUPLICATE||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: per clear . This shouldn't even deserve a discussion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: sure he is notable for one event, but analysis of every moment of this guys life is being made in the media currently and will be ongoing for years to come (i.e. there is a 0% chance that he does not meet ). See Omar Mateen for a recent example. Books will be written about this guy, there is no chance that he isn't a long term notable figure (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald is also notable for one event, should we delete his article?). Redirect voters here are focusing too much on  and  and ignoring the forest for the trees.  says: {{tq|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:BIO1E||WP:RECENTISM||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: per  as everyone else suggests
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: per  and . Not to mention, a subject article just opens up the floodgates for ongoing media speculation posing as content
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:1EVENT)

Comment: per  as everyone else suggests
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: despite the number of !votes to the contrary. The argument that there won't be enough coverage specific to the perpetrator because he didn't live to be tried is without merit—Charles Whitman, perpetrator of the University of Texas tower shooting, likewise died on the scene but that didn't prevent ample coverage specific to the perpetrator. We already know that Stephen Paddock's background is atypical for mass shooters; further investigation will only underscore this fact and expand upon it.  doesn't apply—it is about cases where the ''occurrence'' of the event itself, or its own factual characteristics, are speculative. The guidelines themselves explicitly allow, and even ''mandate'', predictions of the level of future ''coverage'' of events—for example,  within  explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:N)

Comment: per BLP1E. Also news stories about current events are |primary sources, and the |GNG prefers secondary sources to demonstrate notability. On a basic level 'US gunman kills lots of people' is not at this point in time a notable act, and mass-shootings are common. There is a related discussion at the |village pump on the applicability of NOTNEWS as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG||WP:VPP)

Comment: Per |the "recentism" essay that talks about news spikes and dealing with lots of information that might otherwise glut up the original article. There is a lot of worndering about "who was this guy" and "is he a terrorist or a lone wolf or what" ... a really good encyclopedia should be able to provide people this information. Once wikipedia has pulled together all relevant information, this guy's bio might stand alone or not but it is too early to tell what even happened. Peace
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: While facially this guy is a one-event, the event is rather significant as the deadliest single perpetrator shooting incident to date in U.S. history. Similar to Timothy McVeigh, the one-event domestic terrorist who was the principal actor in the Oklahoma City bombing, or his primary accomplice Terry Nichols, both of whom rate articles despite their both being . Guidelines like 1E are just that, guidelines, not rules. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: per otability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)