Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Ireland (Columbine)

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 delete. The BLP1E arguments are convincing, the "keep" opinions less so in the light of our inclusion policies and guidelines. Sandstein 06:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ireland (Columbine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E, and most of this is already covered at Columbine High School massacre. There's nothing to merge as most of the information is already there in the massacre article, and the other stuff doesn't belong there. Beerest355 Talk 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I lean towards keep because it doesn't cost anybody anything to just leave the separate article in existence. It may not be the most notable article ever, but it's clearly not a self-promotion or any such thing. In an "ultimate encyclopedia of everything," this should exist. Maybe somebody wants to look up this guy, and they'll be happy to find that a page indeed exists. It's true that his info is also in the columbine page, but don't you always find it a small letdown if you look for something, or click a blue link, and then you're dumped in a big and encompassing "here, go look for it yourself" article? This article is not poorly written, so in my opinion it can stay. It's not cruft and not fan-serving. Stijndon (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM and WP:ITLOOKSGOOD seem to be what you're saying. Everything that people would want to know about him (outside of being shot and surviving, he's not notable) is in the Columbine High School massacre article. It could redirect to that, if wanted. Beerest355 Talk 16:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently ignoring the "In an "ultimate encyclopedia of everything," this should exist. Maybe somebody wants to look up this guy, and they'll be happy to find that a page indeed exists." and most importantly, the "don't you always find it a small letdown if you look for something, or click a blue link, and then you're dumped in a big and encompassing "here, go look for it yourself" article?" - Also, to counter the WP:SLAPYOUWITHGUIDELINES bit: WP:NOHARM appears to mostly deal with stuff that's untrue or unverifiable. This is sourced etc., so NOHARM doesn't apply. I agree that I suffer from WP:ITLOOKSGOOD but that was only my final point, after several others. But whatever, I won't lose sleep if this gets merged into columbine. It's just that my opinion is keep, and that's it. Stijndon (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this guy has no notability. WP:NOHARM appears to mostly deal with stuff that's untrue or unverifiable. Note the "For example" part before that section of the guideline. This is the part of the guideline I'm talking about: "As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable." Beerest355 Talk 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Being pulled out of a window following the massacre in front of national TV cameras certainly does not merit notability and he did not do anything notable or heroic during the shooting nor received any recognitions afterward. He has also not done anything Columbine-related since the shooting other than a few interviews (which the other survivors have too) and his sister being crowned Miss Colorado in 2007 certainly has nothing to do with him. If he is notable just for surviving an infamous massacre, then we should have articles on every survivor of every major mass shooting in the world. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created it because in my opinion he is notable enough. He wrote a book on his experience. Also, shielding your friend isn't heroic? Jonno - (Wanna talk?)

WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covers GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it. There are a lack of independent third-party sources that directly cover the source. Beerest355 Talk 23:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all see what we want to see I guess. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above. WP:BLP1E trumps WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? you? --BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every convicted murderer or murder victim gets loads of coverage, as per WP:BLP1E we don't create articles even though coverage exists. You should know this after participating in 100s of crime related AfDs. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what a surprise.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a WP:ONEEVENT person and the supposed "book" he wrote doesn't seem notable either since there is no coverage of it other than this ESPN post. In fact, he seems that he never published this "book" and only wrote it for ESPN to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the shooting, which does not indicate notability at all. 74.88.115.8 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He gets ample coverage in the Columbine High School massacre for what happened to him there. But for that tragedy, he would have remained an anonymous character, getting on with his present day job, going by what he has done to date. Hence, the information about him in the Columbine High School massacre article seems to be sufficient. More about what happened to him at the school can be added there, if necessary.The book is incidental. The bits in this article about who visited him in hospital, his marriage, his sister etc. are irrelevant really: tabloid gossip stuff about someone who was temprarily in the news, though, not for being notable. The nom makes a valid point about there being nothing here to merge with the Columbine article.--Zananiri (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbine High School massacre per WP:BLP1E and Zananiri. There's no need to delete outright, though. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a likely redirect. Most Columbine people that were shot and lived don't have redirects, and the disambiguation in the title makes this unlikely to be typed. Beerest355 Talk 14:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, redirects are cheap, and if Ireland is ever found to meet notability standards, we have a decent article with some history to build from. WP:NOHARM isn't a very good argument for keeping an article outright, but with information at the main shooting page about Ireland, a redirect really hits the right middle ground. From a glance at page view statistics for the article, there seems to be some interest in it. Again, that's no reason to keep, but it does mean it's a plausible search term. --BDD (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2013 (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.