Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Hoskins Paddock


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Hoskins Paddock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about an obscure individual, inspired only by the fact that he is the father of the Las Vegas Strip shooting perpetrator. The article's creators did manage to dig up a few older news reports, but they would not have been enough to establish notability. Most coverage about him is from the last 24 hours and would never have happened except for the notorious action of his son. If we eventually get an article about Stephen Craig Paddock, this could be redirected to it. But failing that, delete. MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the Ten Most Wanted for eight years. Even if his son sparked this creation, that's not too shabby on its own devious merit. No one-event bio concerns like Stephen. Sourcing isn't bad, but could improve (as most things can). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There should have been an article on him before this. Need to add more details though for this to be useful Rest day (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, a lot of well sourced content would be lost if this was deleted. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 05:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously created since he was in the news this week due to his son. However, he is clearly notable. On FBI most wanted. Escaped from prison. Multiple crimes. Definitely meets WP:CRIMINAL and WP:GNG - on sourcing prior to this week - which copious in even a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely a person of interest and the sources are solid. I see no reason for deletion. User:Galatic flying —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no breach of the rules and basic sourcing was done. There are many "obscure" persons that -unfortunately- influenced the history and are therefore "good to know." Even such small article is important to get better understanding about the roots of his criminal son.  ChJn (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is part of a rush to delete articles created in the aftermath of the shooting. However, Benjamin seems notable on his own given his criminal history. Interest and sourcing will only continue now. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Good sources on a notable person. Laurent (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I want to say "keep," and that had been my intention when I first came to this page. But then I thought, since the primary argument to keep is that he was on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list, that I should check out the list. What did I find? Very few people from that list have their own wikipedia pages. Even a few CURRENT top 10 most wanted criminals currently don't have a page. Thus it really would seem that this page is merely the byproduct of his son's extremely homicidal conclusion. Keep only if you plan on making more pages for other top 10 criminals from the last 50 years.  Philologick (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say every last member of the FBI's 10 most wanted lists are notable, and we don't have many such articles simply because no one has bothered to do the legwork. 158.130.58.62 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would wager most if not all recent ones do (Recentism). Wikipedia is often lacking in terms of coverage of non-current figures who aren't int today's newspaper. Coverage of people on the most wanted list would definitely meeting GNG in the vast majority of cases, with the sole question being a BPL1E issue for single-crime perps (is the crime notable or the perp) - which is not an issue here.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep-if we're going to have weepers about anyone executed in the United States, as is the rage now, then FBI most wanted listers are more clearly notable and meet WP:CRIMINAL and WP:GNG--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not insult fellow Wikipedians. You can and should make your point respectfully, without sideswipes at anyone.  158.130.58.62 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I can't !vote from an IP, but I'd strongly argue in favor of a speedy snow keep. Article is adequately sourced and meets the notability criteria. --2001:4DD7:6040:0:4DB9:3F81:7B27:7B13 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really that notable to merit a Wikipedia article - he's just an FBI wanted list figure among numerous others. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are a relatively small number of people, being on the list constitutes notability in its own right, IMHO. I have added other fugitives in the past.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep Not even a questionable page. A notable criminal who spent years on FBI most wanted list. Golotaguy (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Golotaguy
 * Strong Keep, newspapers.com has many results about him in particular from the late 1960s and 1970s. If no one else does, I'll try to add some details from them to the article later today. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.