Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan

Add links
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 keep. While there is a valid argument for deletion, it is clear that it is the majority will of the participants that the article be kept. Articles currently under media scrutiny do not make for good AfD discussions, and there shouldn't be any prejudice against another nomination in a few months, pending more information about the events. In the short term however, the consensus is clear. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Malik Hasan[edit]

Nidal Malik Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per ONEEVENT - Drew Smith What I've done 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drew, please re-read the article in its current form, particularly Hasan's summary of Islamic teachings. Hasan - who of course has asked for an attorney - faces 20 years of appeals and will remain in the news as an exponent of Islamist supremacism for the indefinite future. The "One Event" rule is intended to exclude articles on living subjects whose impact is incidental to the event in the public's mind. For example, many people remember the Kuwait fragging incident, but the perpetrator did not produce PowerPoint presentations on Islamic doctrine.

WikiFlier (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with possible re-creation later, consensus on the talkpage of Fort Hood shooting was to not create a spin-off, to focus all efforts on a single article until it was clear what Hasan's role/motivations/actions were, due to the already-incorrect information ("The shooter killed himself"), for fear of being a gross violation of BLP. I'm not opposed to creating this article in a week or two, but for now, consensus seems to have been that it should not exist - and I stand by that. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you" "Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." AfD Wikietiquette And please sign your posts. Шизомби (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the biographical information being disclosed about Hasan prior to the shooting merits its own article. It is not merely about an indefinite unknowable motive, but what Hasan did and said on the record apart from the shooting, and how others responded to it. Frankly, it is one thing to say that you are not capable of editing an article to comply with WP:BLP, it's quite another to claim that no editor is. patsw (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Promote Early Close, per WP:ONEEVENT: "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."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or MergeAs stated already, there is/was strong consensus not to create a separate article. Furthermore, Nidal Hasan's lasting notability (i.e. will people forget all about him, or will he continue to be known, like timothy mcveigh) has yet to be established. There is also a strong sense of reduplication between the two articles, as the information in Nidal Malik Hasan is nearly identical to the information in Fort Hood shooting. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the point about the material being largely the same was true yesterday, since then people have begun to trim the references to NMH in the shootings article, and to add some material to his article only. I don't believe that as they stand (and as they will continue to develop) they are as duplicative as they were.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Information will get detailed enough so that information should really be split out with summary in the main article. For example, should you tag the shooting incident or just the individual as an arab or palestinean american (these tags had been removed from the main article, they work much better for the individual) It's pretty clear the individual's notability is not just a fluke that will vanish once we figure out who really did it. 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs)
  • Agree that information in the main article that is unnecessarily duplicative should be culled out, and the main article should only be a summary of this article in regard to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All the background information and speculation concerning his motivation and affiliations is growing quickly and already overshadows the rest of the information in Fort Hood shooting. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this is WP:ONEEVENT 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. Martin451 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This AFD is unnecessary. Consensus was already against a split; the redirect should be restored and re-protected immediately. This is just one more article that has to be monitored for BLP violations now. ~YellowFives 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with those who say that the information in the Fort Hood article should be reduced to a mere summary Wherever that information resides, BLP concerns attach to biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still harder to monitor two pages for BLP violations than one page, and we were doing just fine with one page. There was no reason to create this article. There are good reasons not to. ~YellowFives 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per Bigtimepeace's argument below: "by having a BLP we are, de facto, saying he committed this crime, since simply being accused and then exonerated would absolutely not warrant a Wikipedia article." ~YellowFives 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely having an article about Hasan does not amount to a de facto statement that he committed the crime, anymore than the media reports about Hasan do so. That's simply false. The article very clearly states he is only a suspect, even if he is the only suspect. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument, but I don't agree with it any more here than below. I do not think you have adequately addressed Bigtimepeace's point. Having this article is unnecessary, and the choice does say something. ~YellowFives 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In some ways this can be considered seperate events, as within a court of law each murder will be considered seperate. although not every murder is worthy of an event article, there is precedent for living mass murderers having their on article Martin Bryant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.67.121 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not notable at all outside of the event. Fort Hood Shootings#Suspect should, can, and does cover this information well. Reywas92Talk 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Duplicated information, it is our usual custom not to create article about shooters. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. That doesn't comport with the Hinckley exception I quote above from WP:ONEEVENT. Clearly, this event is significant, and his role in it substantial, and it meets the secondary coverage test.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aloha. Articles about Jack the Ripper, or Timothy McVeigh are completely different. One is a legend, and the other is convicted, dead, and the FBI's early warning signs handbook was written because of him. Nidal Hasan on the other hand has had no direct effect on any govt. policies, is not confirmed to be working with terrorists, and really isn't notable yet outside of the article's scope. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--but those are not the criteria of the guidance. The example given is John Hinckley, Jr. And the criterion is "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." He has already met the Hinckley level of coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No he hasn't. Hinckley attempted to assassinate a president. Nidal Hasan allegedly shot and killed relative nobodies. They don't really equate. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the guidance test is not "who was the victim or intended victim?" It is level of coverage. His level of coverage exceeds that of the example used in the guidance (that of Hinckley). (as well as that of McVeigh's 379,000 google hits, though that isn't necessarily relevant, except that that is another article about a killer of people who until that moment were NN).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. ONEEVENT argues toward keeping this article, per Epeefleche, so the grounds for deletion just aren't convincing. But I don't like the duplication between this article and the Fort Hood main article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Changing to Keep, convinced by discussion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's clearly notable as are Charles Carl Roberts, John Allen Muhammad and Charles Whitman. History will remember him and so should wikipedia. Dincher (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly relevant and notable per Seung-hui Cho Ronnotel (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:ONEEVENT. 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. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:The person may become of interest in the fulllness of time. For the moment, he belongs within the event article. Bielle (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not the example used in the guidance. Hinckley is. And Hasam clearly far exceeds Hinckley on Ghits (as well as McVeigh, whom you pointed to earlier).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's denying he merits coverage on WP. Can a Wikipedia:Search engine test tell us whether he should be treated within the article on the event or separately? I don't know how it would. I'm also not sure what purpose it serves to compare the number of Ghits to Jack the Ripper, Manson, etc. Hasan is news, thus his Ghits will be pretty high for a while. Шизомби (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update again (this time without quote marks in search, as Drew constructed his searches): 42,000 Gnews hits, 952,000 Ghits. The purpose this serves is to reflect the significance of individual (and therefore the appropriateness of an article on him) per WP:ONEEVENT: "The significance of an ... individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terrorist" -- We shouldn't apply that label or take it out of the gossip press; determining what exactly Hasan is guilty of is the law's job. Also WP:WAX. --78.34.223.227 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per reason given by Super. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 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 WP:ONEVENT, it has reached the point of a separate article being the appropriate way to go. WTucker (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now due to duplication of content made arbitrarily and against consensus- which, for the record, seems to have been quite clearly against this creation- that's why the redirect was there in the first place. This does not benefit the encyclopaedia considering there is nothing encyclopaedic in this article that could not be easily covered at Fort Hood shooting. In addition, Hasan has no notability outside of these shootings- at present, he lacks "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role"- WP:ONEEVENT HJMitchell You rang?
  • Delete, per WP:BLP1E, specifically per the section of the policy invoked by User:Epeefleche in their keep !vote: "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" [emphasis added]. As a technical matter, since this is an unfolding news story, Hasan is still only a suspect, and he is not (yet) someone whose role within the event "is substantial" since that has not been adequately established, I would argue, for our purposes as an encyclopedia (as opposed to the purposes of a newspaper or TV news program). Furthermore the event in question is not, in fact, "well-documented"—it has just been mentioned millions of times, but the specifics are still rather unclear, including with respect to Hasan. Is it extremely, extremely likely that the events unfolded roughly as has been described and that Hasan had a "substantial role?" Yes, of course, but Wikipedia needs to be even more conservative about reporting on this than the press are, particularly when we are talking about a biography of a living person. I'm not making this argument in the interests of being lawyer-ish or pedantic (and certainly not in the interests of defending Hasan), but because this goes to the heart of our BLP policy, and to the heart of some of the problems with recentism (for example when newsy BLP articles are created immediately before anyone even remotely understands the situation). The article has already been semi-protected for BLP violations, yet even with protection we have the categories "Murder in 2009", "Mass murder, "Murder in Texas, and "Massacres in the United States." Wikipedia is not a court of law and we do not convict people of crime with our category system. (Just one example of something to think about, if Hasan successfully pleads insanity or is found not competent to stand trial, in the eyes of American jurisprudence he will not in fact be guilty of murder, whatever we individually might think about that.) I see no way in which we can avoid BLP harm on this article right now, and I see no convincing argument for not covering the material in the Fort Hood shooting article for the time being. This is not an effort to suppress information, and I think it extremely likely that we will want an article on Hasan eventually. But it is simply too soon (in addition to being unnecessary) to have a bio article right now, and I don't think anyone can demonstrate that secondary sources currently establish that the "....a separate article for the person may be appropriate" aspect of BLP1E applies here, simply because there is little or no clarity surrounding the actual events of this tragedy. Finally, while I think this specific article warrants deletion at this time, I also think we should, by deleting, send a general message that creation of these type of articles so soon after an event like this is not appropriate and not something we should be doing on Wikipedia. The BLP policy is serious and important, and we need to remember that this really is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a "Topics" page in a newspaper or the like. Had the creator of the article simply held off on creation for a couple of weeks or a month (thus listening to the lack of consensus to do so now), it's likely there would have been consensus to have an article, which is why creating it was a mistake that should be remedied via deletion, at least for the time being. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm - I find these "delete so we can recreate later" !votes to be quite interesting. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you find them interesting? Шизомби (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wouldn't use "interesting" so much as "common sense". The consensus was clear (even if the creator did ride roughshod over it) that he is not worthy of an article. YET. He may well be in a fortnight or a month when we have something concrete to write about him, but not right now- we're not made of paper, not a newspaper and not rushing to meet a deadline so who would it harm to hold off for a while?? HJMitchell You rang? 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, I'm going to do something notable tomorrow, so I'll just go ahead and create my article now, shall I? HJMitchell You rang? 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm ... if as here you've actually already done it, and there are 640,000 Ghits on it (that # keeps on moving up steadily--up 11,000 in a little more than an hour), I'll support you at your AfD!--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's comforting. However, my point was that "he might be notable tomorrow" or "a single act he committed is notable" is not the same as "HE is notable NOW"- number of hits is irrelevant- he's mentioned in every western newspaper, news agency and current events publication but almost every single one of those is focused on the event, not its perpetrator. HJMitchell You rang? 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one can foresee the article being created in the future, what is the benefit in deleting it now?. First there's the basic issue that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but additionally several have expressed the (for me critical) argument that there's a risk of doing real BLP harm if we keep this article while events are still unfolding (remember, a couple of days ago this guy was supposed to be dead). That risk also is there in the Fort Hood shooting article, but it's rather easier to deal with there since it will never become a dumping ground for every bit of rumor and trivial detail relating to Hasan. The real question to ask is not "why delete if we'll probably want it later," but rather "why not hold off on creating it until we're sure?" There's an ongoing problem of people creating newsy articles before they should, and rather than let that process run rampant it can be appropriate to say "no" to that tendency at AfD. Probably this also could have been discussed at the article talk page though as some have suggested, even after the article was created against consensus (a quick revert of that creation could have saved us all some trouble). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the discussion from this comment has focused on WP:CRYSTAL, whereas I feel like the heart of the matter is whether an article about Hasan is appropriate (and acceptable by BLP standards) while he is only a suspect, not convicted. You say we need to be more conservative than the press when considering this, but I'm not sure I agree. After all, they are the professionals here, and if they are dedicating so much massive coverage to Hasan, shouldn't we take that into consideration when it comes to an entry for him? Rather, I think the massive amount of press coverage is a good barometer for us to reference when we consider whether Hasan is worthy of an article. A news organization is legally, morally and professionally obliged to consider the fact that Hasan is only accused of a crime, not convicted, when they do their reporting. The fact that Hasan is still the subject of such a massive amount of press coverage despite the fact that he is not yet convicted indicate that the allegations and evidence against Hasan are so strong, he may very well be worthy of a Wikipedia entry despite the fact that a conviction hasn't been handed down yet. (If it somehow turns out Hasan didn't do this, he's ultimately going to be worthy of a Wikipedia article anyway.) All that being said, it still needs to be very clearly stated in this article that every allegation against him is at this point still just that: an allegation. But as I said in my vote, there is such a massive amount of scrutiny on this article, I think it will be very easy to make sure that happens. And at the moment, it seems to be satisfying those standards. After all, it identifies him as "currently the sole suspect", not "the shooter". and it's expressly stated in the first sentence of the article that the motives are unclear... — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because he's a guy who shot a bunch of people. How on earth could this not be important? - Bagel7T's 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to antagonize or argue with you here, but just FYI an administrator closing this debate will almost certainly discount your !vote/comment as currently worded. "Because he's a guy who shot a bunch of people" is not at all a valid rationale for keeping an article (and it ignores points others are making), and as such you'll have much more of an effect on the outcome if you phrase your keep sentiments at least partially in terms of Wikipedia policies. Just friendly advice even though I'm on the other side of this debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody's denying the significance of the event. What is debatable is whether Hasan needs his own article independent of the only event he's notable for. William Kreutzer, Jr. is an Army Sgt. convicted of killing one and wounding seventeen; there's an article about him, but not the event. Then there's Camp Liberty killings, where Sgt. John M. Russell was convicted of five murders and one assault; there's no article about him, just the event. Hasan at the moment is only a suspect; the only suspect they're acknowledging, and seemingly a red-handed one, but a suspect just the same. I wonder if there should be a section of BLP addressing how to handle suspects and whether suspects merit their own articles, and if so at what point. Шизомби (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to later recreation. As Bigtimepeace notes, allegations are coming out pretty quickly, but documentation is going to be a little longer in coming. The significance of allegations is also hard to determine at this point; does it really matter what clothes he wore or whether he went to a strip club? There was already a temptation to add everything said about him, which will only become worse in an article specifically about him. Essentially a comprehensive newspaper article is being written, not an encyclopedia article. The article was not o long as to justify spinning out a separate one. If it is to be kept, the Nidal Malik Hasan article has lots of BLP problems, e.g. right in the lede "Hasan vocally opposed U.S. military involvement against Muslims, and spoke in support of suicide bombing and armed resistance to US forces" and "Hasan had come to the attention of United States intelligence authorities, through electronic intercepts, at least six months before the attacks because of Internet postings he made discussing suicide bombings[5] and other threats." These are stated as facts despite the sources supporting them only as allegations. I'd put odds on them being confirmed to be true, but we can't crystal ball that. Шизомби (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catches. I've tried to address the cited BLP concerns (others should feel free to check whether I've done so adequately). As mentioned earlier, the same concerns would attach whether the statement is made in a BLP or in the Fort Hoot shootings article. I support those who have suggested that the Fort Hood shootings article should be shortened w/regard to Hasan to a summary, with people redirected to this article for the more in-depth treatment.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the comment that the Fort Hood shooting article is "not so long as to justify spinning out a separate one", I would point out that it is now 58 kb, and WP:SIZERULE states that once it hits 60 kb it "Probably should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we at this AFD? – Was there any reason this could not have been discussed further at Talk:Fort Hood shooting, where it could have been discussed further whether or not to merge or redirect back in? Why add more fuel to what is already a blazing inferno of this BLP/AFD controversy, not to mention give more ammunition to the deletion/inclusion sides of their stupid war? I'm very disappointed here. MuZemike 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, however, there's always the risk that someone will totally ignore the consensus- which is exactly what brought us here in the first place. HJMitchell You rang? 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I have a hard time seeing how this wouldn't end up at AfD - it's the only place where a broad enough consensus can be reached for an article of this type. I'm only surprised it took this long. Ronnotel (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@MuZemike - apart from some IP vandals, I was under the impression that this wasn't such a big controversy. The talk page is generally well behaved, no 3rr violations, not much going on. It's a bit disheartening to hear it labeled "a blazing inferno of this BLP/AFD controversy" and a "stupid war". It's the press that are being dicks, not us.
@Ronnotel - it took this long, because I noticed the article while I was in the middle of a project, and couldn't AFD until I was finished. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The talk page for Talk:Fort Hood shooting is 193k, with 160k of text in archives. I don't see how we can have a sensible discussion there when the talk page is swamped. Martin451 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Controversial redirects need to be hashed out in an AfD. This is obviously a controversial subject, so the decision to go to an AfD was correct.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the high-profile nature of the event, and since this individual is the only suspect named by the investigation - - I think the time for deletion has passed. - Prezboy1 talk 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of fact on this, the article was created less than 6 hours ago (before that it was a redirect) so the argument that "the time for deletion has passed" seems a bit out of place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As premature as the creation of the article itself, I daresay. HJMitchell You rang? 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. If I just hit the "restore this version" button Twinkle gives me on the last version of the page where it was a redirect, how long would it be before I was reverted? HJMitchell You rang? 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not very long. A question for you. How long would it be before such an action was queried at your future RfA? :) Best to let the AfD process work itself out I think. Trust the community - it usually gets it right. Ronnotel (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no burning desire to become and admin, mainly because I don't like the RfA process as it is, but that's a different matter. You can rest assured though, as tempting as it is, I'm going to behave and abide by WP:POINT. However, thankyou for bringing up the importance of the community- it proves my point consensus, although easily overridden (as brought us here), is crucial to decision making on WP. HJMitchell You rang? 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here - the Fort Hood shootings are a massive event, and his role inside it is central. There will be an article on this subject. If we are concerned about allegations coming faster than verifiability, that's to be discussed at the article itself, not here. RayTalk 04:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or obvious merge with Fort Hood shooting - no claim of notability beyond the shootings, clear-cut WP:BIO1E. Qajar (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Single event of an not otherwise newsworthy subject. Remember, no consensus = default to delete. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:AFD clearly states, "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." Not default to delete. — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Cla68: 1.)No default to delete. 2.) The all story raised an ongoing interest and some fundamental questions by American politicians and American media. Call it "not newsworthy"is peculiar.--Gilisa (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "default to delete" point re AfDs is obviously incorrect, and also clearly all subjects of this kind (e.g. John Hinckley) are "not otherwise newsworthy" until they commit the acts that make them newsworthy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think WP:ONEEVENT is a largely misused and misunderstood guideline, and this is an excellent example of how it should not be used. In any event, WP:ONEEVENT 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 Martin451 (talk · contribs): 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. — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but just how is it ridiculous? He isn't notable for anything other than the shooting. If it weren't for the shooting, the article would be a blatant A7! HJMitchell You rang? 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Wilkes Booth isn't notable for anything other than shooting Abraham Lincoln. If you go try to delete that article, you'd be laughed out of the AFD. WP:ONEEVENT allows for case-by-case evaluation in the event of a significant event, but people tend to glaze over that when it comes to provoking this guidelines. Such was the case here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The degree of significant of this event, and this individual's role in it, is massive. I don't think anyone would dispute the first point, rather it's the second point with which some editors objecting to the article are taking issue. In terms of the facts before us (and in terms of common sense), does it look like Hasan had a massive role in this event? Yes, of course, but as Kevin points out below "in this case the individual's involvement has not been tested in the courts." Nor has Hasan even made a comment or statement to this point. While the basic facts of this tragedy may seem (and be) pretty straightforward, they are not at all definitively established, and we arguably set a dangerous precedent when we say "look, the authorities and the press say person x committed crime y" and then promptly create an article about said person. The simple fact is, sometimes they will be wrong. Absolutely no harm is done by keeping Nidal Malik Hasan as a redirect rather than full article for now (readers who type that in would go right to the article on the shooting where they will learn in great detail about Hasan), but by having a BLP we are, de facto, saying he committed this crime, since simply being accused and then exonerated would absolutely not warrant a Wikipedia article. As I said the facts seem fairly clear cut here, but we ought to err on the side of caution while the overall situation is still fuzzy, and as a general point we ought to set a strong precedent for future high profile cases where someone is merely accused (not even indicted) of a crime which relates to "one event." Wikipedia did not exist in the summer of 1996, but I shudder to think how we would have handled the BLP of Richard Jewell during that time given some of the comments here, and wonder if Richard Jewell v. Wikimedia Foundation might have been the end result. I understand this is a different situation from that one, but we're not a news organization out to scoop the competition, we're an encyclopedia that can (and should) hold off on creating any biography of a living person until we're absolutely sure it's something we need in order to offer complete coverage of notable people and events. Maybe we're 99% sure about that now, but we lose nothing if wait until we're 100% sure. The principle of this is rather important I think, and frankly I'm not seeing those supporting retention of the article engaging with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you make an excellent argument Bigtimepeace, but I've already responded to your comment above on this and while I think it's a good point, I just don't entirely agree. Again, I'm not saying there should be a horde of articles about people accused of crimes before they are convicted, but I also don't think this article will set that precedent. The media coverage is extremely significant, and the media has a professional responsibility to keep in mind that a person is only a suspect until they are convicted. If the media nevertheless affords a suspect the amount of coverage Hasan has received, we can use that as a barometer to at least consider whether an article about them is appropriate. And, if that turns out to be the case (I think it does for Hasan), then we just have to be sure that the article reflects that he is a suspect and has not been convicted yet, which I feel this article does reflect... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably will set a precedent, but even if it doesn't, this article is a problem not just because of precedent but because of its effect right now against Hasan. We wouldn't have an article an accused and then exonerated suspect. ~YellowFives 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure we would. If Hasan is exonerated, he will still be notable and worthy of an entry, as a man who was widely believed all around the world to have committed these crimes who turned out to be innocent, and who was shot by a police officer during the event itself... — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The event is the event. The man is the man, which includes information about him and his history which would be inappropriate to include on the Fort Hood shooting page. -114.91.67.222 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect. Firstly, this individual is clearly only notable for his involvement in the Fort Hood incident. BLP1E states that we should only have an article on the individual if their involvement in the event is significant, however in this case the individual's involvement has not been tested in the courts, and until it has been we cannot compare it with John Hinckley, Jr. or any other example noted above. Kevin (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most certainly satisfies WP:NOTE. Subject's life and biographical information about individual has received a significant amount of coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main Fort Hood shooting article; this article is repetitive with the "Suspect" section of the main shooting article, albeit with some details that don't really expand the reader's understanding of Hasan. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It would be highly unreasonable to delete an article on a sole terroist whose action was reported world wide and still arousing interest and world media reports for a week or so. His background, personality and etc were discussed by high rank USA officials and there is certainly no single good reason to delete this article. No one suggesting to delete the articles on 11/9 terrorists or to redirect them (e.g., Mohamed Atta), and he's not different.--Gilisa (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Secondary importance for such article will proof itself in the future to come. I'm sure that conspiracy theories will start blossom soon, and an article with good reliability standards will provide at least some answers to them.--Gilisa (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Media interest in and coverage of the suspect, as an individual, is substantial enough to warrant a spinoff article per WP:SS. More material is likely to accumulate, and would overwhelm the main article.  Sandstein  11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bigtimepeace. One of the best AfD arguments I've ever seen. And, Gilisa, WP:BLP1E 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. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with possible recreation if consensus changes around the Fort Hood pages. This information is (and should) be covered by the FHS article, not a standalone article that treats WP:BLP1E like an essay rather than an important policy. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ONEEVENT. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sandstein above. Sources exist to write a balanced biography; useful to readers; needed to keep the shooting article focused. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that he is only notable for one event and that event already has its own page. All of this information can easily be added to the main article. No reason to repeat ourselves.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia policy is totally incompetent when it comes to dealing with current events, so as always - defer to common sense - which should say to anybody that purely on size grounds alone, there is already enough detail out there to sustain two distinct articles, which should be editted to properly focus on their subjects, the shooting, and the man. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 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 WP:BIO1E ("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 WP:SS ("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.").   — C M B J   15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Wikipedia has articles on other killers (Jeffrey Dahmer et al.), so why would this article be deleted? I came to Wikipedia for information about Hasan this morning, and I searched under "Hasan" not under "Fort Hood Shooting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.135.128 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random section break[edit]

  • Keep The article about the event and the article about the alleged perpetrator have different topics. The first article is already so active that many editors are getting edit conflict message multiple times while making good-faith edits. Biographical material is on Hasan is gradually being filled in, spinning off the article removes many of the BLP issues from the main article. Who Hasan is, and his motivations do not bear very heavily on the description of the event and its aftermath. Many of the refs for bio material have no info re the event itself and vice versa. I'm slightly rankled by being obligated to assume good faith on the part of whomever nominated the article for deletion. Keep, and stop wasting the project's resouces on frivolous AfD nominations such as these. I support mild sanctions against the nominator User:Pedant (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    100% positive this nom was made in good faith. We don't sanction good faith actions. Ronnotel (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was made against consensus. AFD was the logical choice. Don' be a dick - Drew Smith What I've done 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as others should extend WP:AGF to you as nom, so should you do so to the editor who created Nidal Malik Hasan as a separate article. It's quite possible the person who created this article was not aware of the (rather thin) consensus you describe and was simply being bold. In any case, AfD is the proper place for this discussion, not buried in the middle of an article talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do assume the article was created in good faith. I'm actually quite positive the creator had no idea of the consensus. That still doesn't change the fact that AFD is the best place for the article ATM. - Drew Smith What I've done 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We agree that this AfD is proper - however whatever "consensus" there might have been on the talk page is moot at this point. We are getting an order of magnitude more input here and as a consequence, a better sense of consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no basis whatever for sanctions against the nominator.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, it is clear that the nomination was made in good faith, and that it was/is a proper search for consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This article needed to go to AfD. The discussion on the talk page is buried, and many people will not see it. Whether or not the nomination for AfD was good or bad faith, with this type of article someone had to do it. So lets Assume good faith here, and stop asking for sanctions against the nominator. Martin451 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I support mild sanctions against the nominator User:Pedant (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"
Then I would support stronger sanctions against Pedant for not assuming good faith in the first place. How do you think know about it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 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 WP:ONEEVENT is clearly passed based on evidence which has been disclosed regarding his terrorist sympathies and hostility to the United States Army. patsw (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Oswald is dead. Hasan is a live person. kgrr talk 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect WP:BLP1E recommends creating an article on the event rather than the individual. Move the pertinent information to Fort Hood shooting, redirect this article there and delete.  kgrr talk 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E also states that "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified" and that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate [...] as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role".   — C M B J   17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article doesn't make assumptions and sticks to the facts known at this time. The facts will be edited in as they are discovered. With other killers in Wikipedia, why should this one be deleted just because it's more recent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.88 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 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.  Burningview  ✉ 17:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question in response to your comment: if you're citing WP:ONEEVENT in this case (which I've already voiced my strong disagreement about), why would an article in the future be appropriate simply because there are more publications about him out there? By your logic, he'd still only be known for one event, he'd just be more widely known for that one event, and thus he'd never be worthy of an article. I disagree with that, as well as the fact that WP:ONEEVENT excludes him now... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He already has a great deal of biographical information which has reported on, both in the media and from official sources prior to the shooting. Some of this information is certainly encyclopedic. Hasan is a already a significant historical figure as McVeigh, Hinckley, or Oswald. The amount of Nadal Malik Hasan information apart from the Fort Hood shooting only going to grow. patsw (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One event yes...one SIGNIFICANT, WORLD CHANGING event. A great deal of his personal history and his personal saga leading up to the event has no place in the article about the event. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete self-evidently it will either be "Keep", "Merge and redirect" or (very unlikely) just "Redirect." Hence should not have been brought here. Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge. There's clearly a case to be made for merging with the Fort Hood shooting article, but it seems self-evident that at some point, we would want a separate article on this person. Letting this article remain would be the path of least resistance. --Athansor (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The challenge for the Wikipedia is not the vexed and ultimately arbitrary question of "what is notable", rather it is "what is verifiable". I know that we have an abundence of rules and guidelines which cannot be ignored. However, I would far rather that all of the misplaced effort on notability went into improving accuracy and getting articles properly referenced. As it stands, the notability guidelines (in conjunction with style guidelines such as article length) are being used to suppress verifiable information that some readers will want to know.Greenshed (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With an apparent consensus against the creation already, and the fact that it's a BLP1E, this seems to be a clear delete. Historical significance isn't established here. It just happened a few days ago and it's not a unique case. The article is redundant of the event article as well, probably considering this is all he's notable for. Lara 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is very noteworthy. Also there will be much more information coming out in the coming weeks and months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rt4500a (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as someone already mentioned, we wouldn't delete john wilkes booth, oswald, or Jeffrey Dahmer. username 1 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Should be a no brainer. The seeming wilful ignorance by US military/law enforcement officials of Hasan's comments and actions is exposing a plethora of fault lines. This will get to be an even bigger story and Hasan is the catalyst.Rockford1963 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - For above stated reasons. Gage (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If we choose not to learn about or understand terrorists and learn the signs of their behahior beforehand, we allow other such people to operate freely among us. As for merging with the Ft Hood article, the precedent is against this. Hitler's article is not merged with WWII's, Sirhan Sirhan has not been merged with Bobby Kennedy's article, nor has the article on Osama bin Laden been merged with the 9/11 article. Since the one event rule allows for seperate articles when an individual plays a significant role in a significant event the article should be kept. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." --74.248.49.174 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is Wikipedia, not the website of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). "Honest Ibe" Ibrahim Hooper and his Islamist minions will be crawling over this and other articles and come up with 1001 reasons to delete, scrub, rename etc. this article.
  • Strong Keep - It's mind boggling that there is even a discussion. Oodles of references. There is no doubt that the event and Nidal will continue to garner non-trivial discussion for many years to come. PC gone mad IMHO. Hazir (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Hasan's article is noteworthy. He is the perpetretaor of a national terrorist attack and has thousands of articles in newspapers mentioning him. This should not even be under consideration for deletion.

Boromir123 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Hasan will remain newsworthy for decades. If he is not "killed" (as prematurely announced by Lieutenant General Cone), he will be on military or civilian death row for decades. His name is also relevant because he authored a highly significant 50 slide PowerPoint overview of Islamic doctrines that will be a crucial piece of evidence in future discussions about Islam.

The article SHOULD STAY under Nidal Hasan's name.

WikiFlier (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not supply an argument above (to be fair, many people above failed to do so). Your edit summary says "re you delete voters *insane*? he shoots 40 soldiers for religious reasons, according to many reports, and you think this won't be remembered?" Many editors here would do well to reread Wikipedia:AFD#AfD_Wikietiquette, Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Ad hominem and straw man are good reads also; is anyone really claiming this event won't be remembered...? Шизомби (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained by many others above. LovesMacs (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-Strong Keep - If Seung-Hui Cho has his own page, there is no reason this person should not, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Beale (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Delete. This suspect is innocent until or if proven guilty. True, there are hundreds of WP editors and even a few rogue admins who don't care anything about BLP policies. If this man is convicted of something notable--by a court of law, not by the media or by Wikipedia--then and only then will an article be appropriate for him. Qworty (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even should he be acquitted or not charged with anything, he would be notable for having received massive media coverage as the prime suspect in the case. Conviction of a crime is not a factor in our inclusion criteria for biographies. We do have articles about people other than convicted criminals, you know.  Sandstein  06:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass media coverage does not cancel out the BLP guidelines. The media doesn't run Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines here, unlike the media. Qworty (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Qworty, your mass deletions just now at this article go against all consensus. The 60 people who commented here have expressed various views, but nothing in the consensus views supports your wholesale deletions of material from RSs. Pls take a cup of tea, and revert yourself, so we avoid edit warring on the page as people otherwise seek to bring it back to reflecting the RSs that have been there previously. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to Qworty's point, if this guy is not convicted [in a court of law, not the mass media, many of whom seem to have convicted him already] (and there is no guarantee that he will even be charged) he will not have lasting notability. To put BLP1E aside for the moment and working on the assumption that he's eventually acquitted (humour me, here!) then, in a few months, maybe a year, nobody who know who the f**k he is. HJMitchell You rang? 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Richard Jewell slip back into anonymity when he was exonerated? Hardly. Maj. Hasan is notable, now and in the future, regardless of what may happen in the upcoming legal proceedings. Ronnotel (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the BLP concerns are valid. BLP does not prevent us from creating articles about people charged with crimes and not convicted. In the case of Hasan, I expect that soon we will be finding out if he admits pulling the trigger on these people. That is entirely possible long before any verdict. Meanwhile, the microscopic media attention is continuing in virtually every newspaper, magazine and website in the world.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here we go again. Good faith nomination grounded in policy, to be sure, but we see this every time someone wants to test the "notable for one event" idea. As WP:ONEEVENT 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". No matter what one thinks the strict rule is supposed to be, people consult Wikipedia when they want to find out more about a particular subject. People are, and will continue to be, interested in the U.S. Army Major who went berserk and killed lots of people on his base. It's not a matter of whether he "deserves" "his own" article, or whether we should keep this solely as "2009 Fort Hood shooting" out of respect for the victims. It's common sense to have an article about Major Hasan. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. WP:BLP1E is being mis-interpreted fairly consistently by those who are citing it as a reason to delete. I'm not sure if the policy itself is unclear or if it's not being read completely. You need to get all the way to the end of the section before "significant event" is defined (by the event's prominence in the reliable sources). Perhaps the policy needs to be revised to make it clearer. Ronnotel (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike some other criminals, this one's background and biography are indeed of substantial interest, covered in reliable sources. Easily justifies a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- there seems to be two major arguments against keeping this article, which I'll address in turn. First, WP:NOTNEWS, 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: WP:BLP1E, 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 WP:CRYSTAL 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. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this goes right to the heart of the matter. You argue that his role is significant, "given that this gentleman is the alleged perpetrator." I think most of those arguing in favor of deletion would completely disagree with that logic, and that's the point at which we are reading policy differently. "Alleged" is the key word here, and for the purposes of American jurisprudence (and Wikipedia, I would argue) Hasan does not have a significant role in the event simply because it is "alleged" that he does (I think few would argue that he would warrant an article were he to be exonerated and then fade into obscurity). Given the basic facts here, the odds are 99.9 out of 100 that his role is exactly as it has been described by the media and military officials, but our BLP policy should lead us to worry about the .1% chance that the allegations are somehow wrong, which is why people are arguing for deletion (by this argument, John Hinckley, Jr. should not have had an article on April Fools Day of 1981 either, though of course he should have one now). I have not seen any comment from anyone in favor of keeping that argues convincingly against this point, and that's why there's still a strong possibility that an administrator could close this AfD as delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, given that he's the one and only suspect, and given the major press coveragge thats currently digging deeper and deeper into his past (i'm currently listening to a story on NPR on his past, although out of BLP concerns, I won't go into specifics), that at this point, much like Richard Jewell, whether or not he's eventually found guilty is no longer relevant. He's received enough attention AS the primary suspect, that he's crossed over the threshold of WP:BLP1E and should be kept. Examples of both Jewell and John Hinkley can be used to demonstrate that, guilty or not, individual notability from a single event can be achieved. On a slightly more flippant note, right wing hysteria regarding this man will probably be enough to push him into notability even if he wasn't before ;).Umbralcorax (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is notable for only one event and does not warrant a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No demonstrated notability outside of single event -- cover him inside it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Promote Early Close, without prejudice for relisting/or merge after 60 days. AfDs like this waste too much time, just like Balloon Boy did. Way too many keep votes to close as delete; no consensus is fine as well.--Milowent (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the number of keep or delete "votes" (they're not votes) is supposed to be largely if not entirely irrelevant; it's the value of the arguments that matters. It's possible there could be 1000 keeps and one delete (or vice versa), and the result would be to go with the minority (I don't know how often that actually happens, though). I'm not sure how the AfD is wasting time; one could also say the the creation of the article did the same. Шизомби (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This whole thing could go either way, but he has not received a trial or been convicted of the attacks yet. Serial Murderers, terrorists etc. are indeed notable even if they did just commit one event but this man is just a suspect not the culprit.-Marcusmax(speak) 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random section break 2[edit]

  • Strong Keep and Promote Early Close, concurring with Epeefleche and Milowent. // Internet Esquire (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Fort Hood shooting article for now, merging relevant reliable information. He's a suspect in a current case, and a lightning rod, making his article a BLP nightmare. It should most likely be recreated after a trial, or at least until the media circus cools a little. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Umbralcorax's policy logic. — goethean ॐ 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cirt and Sandstein, both of whom put it well and succinctly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A psychiatrist driven crazy by US/Bush/Obama foreign policy - what could be more fascinating? Plus all the other keep reasons above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every single detail of this persons life will be gone over with a fine tooth comb in the next few years, by reliable sources such as the fbi, nsa, you name it. even if he is an absolute nobody as a result, with only, say, a sudden psychotic break explaining the events, he will be ridiculously notable even for that. His life experiences WILL be used in armed forces mental health training to help discover and stop such events before they start. separate article from the shooting is justified 100%, even at this early stage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether convicted or exonerated in the future, clearly notable enough now a carefully written article, per BLP1E and Epeefleche's, Hunter Kahn's, Umbralcorax's arguments above. Size considerations also suggest splitting.John Z (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep there exists in wikipedia uncounted dozens of individuals who have done far less, and have impacted far fewer. given the precedence of earlier mass-shooters, e.g. Seung-Hui Cho, i don't understand why this proposal as gone on as long as it has. --emerson7 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep This man is an accused terrorist, and jihadist mass murderer. There is absolutely no reason to delete, except by Islamist sympathizers, or those who wanna keep this under wraps because he is a Palestinian Arab.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although he's only known for one event, this is a significant enough event that we should consider him as being exempt from WP:ONEEVENT. Consider Seung-Hui Cho (admittedly, he's dead, but still would reasonably fit under this criterion), John Hinckley, Jr., or Squeaky Fromme: they're not known for anything except their crimes, but as long as we have articles about living people, there's no good reason not to have articles about them. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 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. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. But doesn't the guidance's Hickley exception (which a number of us believe this falls under) ask us to do precisely that?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a valid comparison. With Hinckley, the passage of time has allowed for a detailed analysis of his involvement and motivations etc, that we do not have in this case. Kevin (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if you examine the material closely, most of the stuff in his 'career' section isn't all that biographical, but only seems to fits as an ex-post view of his beliefs and the motivation in light of the attack. I've moved the bulk of this to the 'Fort Hill shooting' article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from national leaders, this guy is about as notable as it gets. What next, an AfD for Mohammed Atta? Kauffner (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator doesn't seem to understand what WP:ONEEVENT is about. --Conti|✉ 11:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of like saying that Chesley Sullenberger shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia until he has saved two airline flights from disaster. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+ The german discussion just ended with keeping the article de:Nidal Malik Hasan--Kriddl (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Clearly notable for his role in the Fort Hood shootings. Will face at least 13 counts of murder. [1]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His article was not needed on the shooting article in the first place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However it is obvious that this discussion is no longer about deleting this article. As it has grown into its own article the discussion has become whether or not to merge it with its original page - the Fort Hood shooting. Supertouch (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination and !vote deletes mis-interpreted one-event guidelines. Hasan meets one-event notability guidelines by a mile. Also the Fort hood shooting artilce covers much more than Mr. Hasan, so Don't merge seems appropriate. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy Keep. Editors above arguing WP:ONEEVENT are misunderstanding or misusing that "other consideration" portion of the BLP policy, which itself argues for this article to be included -- to wit: "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 Fort Hood shootings are certainly notable, as is (unfortunately) the individual responsible for them. The two should be kept separate-- as should be clear-- because an event article covers a particular period of time, whereas a biographic article contains material from prior to the event, through to the current status of the individual. --HidariMigi (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other murders have articles and are less notible. He is clearly more notible than them, so in turn he SHOULD have an article. Crash Underride 20:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I'm not convinced WP:BLP1E 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 WP:Summary 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. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no justifiable reason to delete it and this man unfortunately is now a part of history. There are countless other murderers on wikipedia who should be taken off wikipedia first.Donmike10 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – mass-murderers are usually considered notable, and this one's psychiatric and military background make him a particularly interesting figure. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please close this? This AFD has been going long enough, and a decision would be nice... - Drew Smith What I've done 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, but if an admin closes this early, thats just begging for someone to take it to DRV. Better to let the full seven days elapse and maybe get it out of our system. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, a withdrawal from you would allow an admin to easily close it as keep. That would certainly make things easier on everybody, but only if you think it should be kept of course. Otherwise, we'll just need to ride it out. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- I believe it is notable. It is a big topic in a notible event. Parker1297 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Im not going to read the whole AfD discussion but comment on the nom's post, this is a notable person and with 13 counts of murder on him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and move toward Early Close Certainly this individual is now notable, albeit in a negative way, based upon the amount of attention he has drawn by his (technically still alleged) actions. Djbaniel (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason he is notable is the event of killing others. The event is what is notable, he isn't notable outside of it. 98.26.254.61 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many non-notable people who are simply related to an event get their apartments photographed by Time Magazine? See here: "Inside the Apartment of ... Hasan"--Firefly322 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep & early close. This individual is very notable and there is significant coverage and reliable sources to back it up. warrior4321 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, suggestion for early close. Not all of the necessary information about this individual can be kept in a small space on the Fort Hood shooting page. I agree with the person above me, the person is notable and there is an amount of sources to prove that he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RampinUp46 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huge amount of coverage in reliable sources so he clearly passes WP:N. The length and density of citations in the article attest to this fact.--Falcorian (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not quite as notable as Benedict Arnold, but (allegedly :)) quite high on the scale of infamous perpetrators of treason. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable to (alleged :)) central involvement in an event of such great importance: "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Andrea105 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep poor nomination statement and there is relevant encyclopaedic information in this article that could be merged into the event article rather than outright deletion. Guest9999 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUST KEEP - Users come to this page to find out about Nidal Malik Hasan An army major (commissioned officer!) turning his gun on troups inside the U.S. is a much bigger story than earlier "fragging" incidents, e.g. the incident in Kuwait. The majority of voices arguing for deletion/merger of this article are simply CAIR sockpuppets trying to bury a piece that is hugely damaging to their Islamic supremacist and homophobic agenda. Their protestations are simply exercises in taqiyya, i.e. lying to dumb infidels.

WikiFlier (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't appear particularly concerned about being accused of racism and assuming bad faith. --87.79.56.131 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. I've checked this bias. See here. There is no such "radical Christian" website. It was something this editor appears to have dreamed up. It was done in an attempt to discredit coverage by Time Magazine's Nov. 23, 2009 lead/lede story "Terrorist?". Since my Trust But Test proposal, there have been no more non-WP:RS WP:SYNTH proposals on the talk page. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The strongest argument I can see for deleting runs like this: in order to keep the article, the argument has to be made that this is an exception to WP:BLP1E. For this to be an exception to WP:BLP1E, Hasan had to have had a “substantial” role in the Fort Hood killings. And when we say that he had a substantial role, we are necessarily jumping to the conclusion that he is guilty. And by doing that we are violating WP:BLP. However, I disagree that we are effectively concluding about Hasan’s guilt. Indeed, if he were innocent, his role is still substantial enough to warrant its own page simply due to the fact that all major media are treating him as guilty and devoting so much time and space to him as a person such that, were he to be exonerated, he would still warrant his own article as a result. -- Irn (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well sourced article. Notable individual with a substantial role in the Fort Hood murders. Acps110 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article WILL exist at some point in the future, so why not now. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we do not even have to assume that--there are sufficient sources to justify it now. There's a difference between mere news and news that makes history. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I came here because I was interested in Hasan. The Ft. Hood attack is gruesome, to be sure, but I think the article about Hasan himself will outweigh it eventually (if it hasn't already). Who mentored him, what connections did he have with radical Islamists, why was his psychosis not addressed, what was the role of political correctness, etc.Kbk (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perpetrator who is linked to a seperate incident does not mean that the article has to be merged. Developments on Hassan may come in and a seperate article will be good. Mr Tan (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:ONEEVENT. Uh...this is a pretty big deal, and he is the cause of this pretty big deal. The guidelines are clear. – Alex43223 T | C | E 07:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 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 WP:CRYSTAL 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. JamesMLane t c 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the time of the nomination it was a clear delete but since then things changed. No matter what the future brings, even in the unlikely case that he would be found innocent [would be some kind of miracle but hey, I wasn't there so I don't "really" know] that guy is already part of American history. Sure, right now his bio is misused as a coat rack for all kind of views as is the shooting article but this will settle and cease at some point so we can have (as JamesMLane somehow said above) an article about the shooting itself w/o clutter and a bio of Hasan, also w/o clutter of course. It might take some time but time is what we have here "en mass".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epeefleche. RS coverage, including analysis pieces that deal in motives, is far beyond BLP1E, and article is far too detailed to merge into an article about the event. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've switched from delete in light of recent developments in the case, the increase in availability of Hasan and vast improvements to the article. I believe the creation of the article was premature, however, his notability is now established. The piece by Time Magazine and the fact Hasan has now been charged both weighed heavily on my decision. We now have something encyclopaedic, not tabloidish, to say about him that didn't exist when the article was nominated. HJMitchell You rang? 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for keeping an open mind as events unfolded, even after you voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature AFD - close discussion without prejudice to another RFD in a few weeks. Or, if deleted, close without prejudice to re-creation/deletion review if significantly new material arises. I would prefer to close this as keep or no consensus now, and revisit if necessary in a few weeks. Odds are this will be a keep along the lines of Balloon Boy hoax. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't premature at all. Things have only evolved since then.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current state, I believe that, aside from the obviously one-event notability of the person, the article is nevertheless warranted for the reason of his notability and to avoid clutter on the shooting page Sceptre (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this was more of a borderline case the lean to deletion would easily be more persuasive. Instead the timing of the incidents - amidst war burnout during the presidency of the one who didn't start the war and preceeding the US holiday of veterans day - ensures that indeed like the tabloidy coverage of all things violent in the US, we will get to know absolutely everything we could ever want to know about this subject. One year from now, looking for a fresh angle ... they will pick over the story again and track down his family members and friends and build a dramatic special on it. This easily flies over GNG and is certainly has piles of sources. -- Banjeboi 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources" is the rule of thumb and I would have thought Nidal Hasan passes that test. If the event drops off the radar at some point, which I very much doubt, then this process should be revisited, but at the moment this subject appears to be notable. Rje (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage continues to be persistent, worldwide, affecting many related bio, political, religion and ethics articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but, with all due respect, this is one of the lamest keep reasons I encountered here or elsewhere in an AFD. No offense meant [I "voted" for keeping this article] but you should try to make an argument based on facts and policies.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=1220814106"