Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Jordan Dorner


 * 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. Merger discussion can be provided elsewhere. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Jordan Dorner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. See also WP:BLPCRIME.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference between him and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes both have not been found guilty and both are only known for shootings.--Ron John (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The BBC have reported the search for this guy as California's largest ever manhunt. If that is true we should keep this. Also has outside US coverage. One of the main stories on tonight's BBC Six O'Clock News for example. This may fail WP:BLP1E, but it passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note When writing my previous comments I didn't know we had 2013 Southern California shootings. But the information should be there. It's the event rather than the individual that is notable just now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings; Falls under WP:BLP1E. Subject/Suspect is notable, but is notable for one event. If 2013 Southern California shootings meets WP:LIMIT sometime in the future, this article can be recreated as a sub-article spinout of the parent article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per Right Cow. The usual Wikipedia practice is to list crimes under the name of the crime, not the name of the (alleged) criminal. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. We may eventually need a separate bio article but right now a single article about the crimes is what's called for. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - as above. A merge discussion has already begun on the relevant article talk page, this AfD was unnecessary. GiantSnowman 19:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. A merge may be a bad idea until there is closure on the case. If it is kept as a seperate article then material on any suspects can be kept seperate from material on Mr. Dorner. Until closure they should be considered as two seperate people in wp articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep high profile incidents like this are not textbook cases for BLPIE, which is a guideline, not an absolute rule. there is info being reported which fits well into the crime article, but not into the biography, and vice versa. This is simply very similar to the Holmes case even at this early date, per RonJohn. PS, this really shouldnt be at AFD, but should be an active discussion at the articles, as there is no question that this article will NOT be fully deleted. the discussion is only about a merge/redirect, as he is obviously notable.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect   MacDermott, this can't pass WP:EVENT since a biography is not an event, that's why we put the material, as BLP1E indicates, into the event article rather than the individual article.  BLP1E isn't about notability, it's about living people and due weight.  50.193:  This has a couple days of headlines, but is not yet the sort of textbook "high-profile" case that a presidential assassination attempt is.  Keeping a separate biography that focuses only on material relevant to the shootings, for an alleged criminal, is problematic because of bias and due weight involving living people.  That's why we have BLP1E, that's the entire point of the policy.  Ronjohn: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  LlamaAl: If you read BLP1E, you'll find that it's not a deletion rationale, it's a merge and/or redirect rationale, and deletion here isn't warranted. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not delete I'm backing away from having an opinion on the merge request given events since my original view, I think at this point a case could be made for various merges or keeps, and I no longer have a strong preference or policy opinion between the two.  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a result of the shootings, he is now not only famous as a murderer, but also as an activist and author of a manifesto. There is more press attention about Dorner than there is about others who took part in small scale shootings, because of Dorner's unusual attributes. 67.1.67.151 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination in favor of merge discussion. Original deletion nomination was spurred by an admin's comments at WP:RFPP. In light of the rationale presented here, a merge seems more appropriate.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect for now, with no prejudice against spinning a new article out later when there's more to say about him. This content can currently be easily contained as a section of the main article. Robofish (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. This happens in every big media event. Should try to keep it to one article if we can, otherwise it creates too much redundancy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think these enough material coming out now to build a stand alone biographical article.-Kiwipat (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong merge and redirect, as per WP:PERP which states that:
 * a) A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
 * b) A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
 * 90% of the article in its current form is lifted directly from 2013 Southern California shootings. Furthermore, Dorner has not been apprehended by law enforcement, and so his guilt has not yet been established. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This man is notable and his military record is of importance.Gangamstyle (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This doesn't fail BLP1E as others have said, because he is a major player in the event and has received significant news coverage.-- JOJ Hutton  02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: How does this not fail BLP1E? BLP1E clearly states that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article", so "receiving signficant news coverage" is not an argument to keep the article. Furthermore, BLP1E states that a person should not have an article is a) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", and I can find no mention of Dorner in relation to anything outside the shootings; b) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.", and again, Dorner is not noted for his connection to anything beyond the shootings; and c) "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and we don't even know if Dorner is, in fact, the person carrying out the shootings. He is only a suspect; his guilt has not been proven. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep His name is more notable than his crimes. Belongs on the List of serial killers in the United States.The guy's become an antihero, and this will only grow. He's not your common-or-garden ordinary criminal. He's intelligent, liberal (loves Obama, Piers Morgan and is pro anti-gun laws), has sympathetic issues, writes well, and is well informed. He's also about to be killed on sight. American to the core. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not Wikipedia's job to try and turn Dorner into some kind of folk hero. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And what in God's name do his political leanings or tastes in cable TV have to do with anything whatsoever? --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, and widely reported by numerous news sources. ScienceApe (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This template was removed from the article prematurely. I do not see any kind of consensus or resolution to the issue. If an adminstrator feels otherwise, please undo that edit I made the page restoring the note that it is up for deletion, and let me know via my talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep While known due to reported criminal activity, Dorner has become emblematic of our times. There should be an article on the series if crimes, of course, but no tag line has yet emerged for those crimes.  In any case, he will need a separate article.Madame L&#39;Auteur (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Madame L&#39;Auteur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge and redirect to 2013_Southern_California_shootings. As others have already said, the subject is notable only for this event; and since there isn't a whole lot of info on Christopher Dorner in the first place, why keep the info that is available separated? It might be more convenient to cram everything into a single article for those researching the topic. (which is actually the only reason I came here) 98.86.95.91 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep until wait and relist Let's let a few more days play out and see how much the media reports this then relist. Tomato expert1 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is already enough of facts disclosed in the article, that it can serve as a reference for those interested in brief (unbiased) review of the case as well as those waiting for the news on the case. Mass media will have a lot of biased information, and in Wikipedia there can be more objective and alternative thoughts carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.227.111 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as per Prisonersmonkey and others. -Glump (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per all above. Kurtis (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and resirect per WP:BLP1E. It doesn't help that the page has devolved into a reproduction of his screed. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep "1 Event" does not apply, he is wanted for numerous shootings. This is a notable criminal suspect, and this AfD stretches the limits of good faith. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, guy, WP:BLP1E most certainly DOES apply, as it's all counted as one event -- you know, one crime spree -- and I'm having a hard time understanding what, exactly, is the "bad faith" in noting it as such. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge The article about all the shootings and who died and Dorner himself is a better article than an article just about Dorner. Banaticus (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per textbook case of WP:BLP1E. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot believe that this deletion is being considered (actually, from years of experience here, I can, but moving on...) Dorner will become part of California history if not a folk hero.  FB friend Nick Ut covered an LA jail lock-down because of purported prisoner-sympathy for Dorner.  The beating of the schizophrenic that triggered this event will likewise become "emblematic of our times" as his testimony was ignored by the LAPD inquiry because of mental illness--the alleged victim pointed to a sizable scar that should have gotten stitches.  This is history in the making, but many wikipedians (some of whom self-identify here) lack the ability to comprehend the importance events like this.  --John Bessa (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, nobody appears to be making an argument for deletion, or nearly no one. Whatever question exists in the editors here is a question of which article name the material belongs best within, and whether the concerns that lead us to have a WP:BLP1E policy are applicable here.  --j⚛e deckertalk 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, nothing here should be surprising.--John Bessa (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not for Wikipedia to try and turn Dorner into a folk hero. The fact that you think that a) he is, and b) it's our job to portray him like that is appalling. A page on Dorner might be appropriate once he has been apprehended and everyone begins to understand the full extent of what has happened. In the meantime, any material on Dorner is best-suited to the page on the shootings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This man's personal story needs a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.114.27 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This man's story is so compelling that it requires its own page. To merge this page would be a disservice to Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.19.182 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)  — 74.104.19.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: A "compelling story" is not reason enough for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a news service. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep pending further development of the story. It is already a major media event, well discussed among national American media.  Not only that, it will very likely bring about some sort of commentary on supposed corruption in the police force in LA. Cdevon2 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep In the future, many will know the individual by name and not by the event which could easily become confused with other named events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.48.17 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article is redirected, his name will still be searchable as a redirect, and a click on his name will direct readers to the appropriate article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The 2013 Southern California shootings page should be merged with this one. The article title of the 2013 Southern California shootings page has got to be a contender to win some sort of award for the most vague, mealy mouthed Wikipedia article title ever. Shootings occur in Southern California by the hour if not the minute. It's only 10 Feb 2013: there will be hundreds if not thousands more shootings between now and the end of 2013 in Southern California. Will all shootings in 2013 in Southern California henceforth be included in this article? In that case, then what about shootings in 2013 in Northern California; shootings in 2012 in Southern California and in all previous years; shootings in the rest of the fifty states of the USA, broken down region by region? No one looking for details about the alleged conduct of Christopher Dorner is going to search for 2013 Southern California shootings unless they already know the name of the article. An encyclopaedic article title needs to be precise, specific, and easily searchable and found. This applies to the Wikipedia article on Christopher Dorner by naming the article after the subject. 58.165.123.47 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's enough coverage of the individual and his background to let a decent bio grow here covering more that just the crime spree.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Already a notable individual by now. Keanu (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect There is no need for a separate article at this time. All relevant information can be covered on 2013 Southern California shootings. If the suspect becomes notable in his own right later on, we can easily make a split. In the meantime, it makes more sense to work on one unified article, and allow a separate bio article to grow there as a section, if it does. Wikipedia policies clearly support this position. A redirect also makes sense because it makes the article more easily searchable than its current vague title. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy close The nominator has withdrawn the delete nomination, and no-one else has !voted "delete". A delete discussion is not the place to choose a merger target. The only possible closure for this discussion is "keep, and discuss a merge or rename at the appropriate talk page." In this case the appropriate place to discuss keep-or-merge is at Talk:2013 Southern California shootings. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You cannot WP:SK an article that has had subsequent discussion that is not unanimous. Delete and Keep are not the only outcomes of an AfD discussion as listed at WP:XFD. Furthermore, I have reverted User:Tomato expert1's close as keep of this AfD as he participated in the discussion (and not an administrator or experienced good standing editor; 4/4 guideline points not followed) as per WP:NACD. Mkdw talk 07:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of your reasons, reopening this is pointless. Consensus to keep has already been achieved, and since the AFD closed, there has been significantly more coverage on Dorner. ScienceApe (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean regardless of policies/guidelines we should ignore the rules and do whatever we want? You must understand, the reason we have policies and guidelines as a pillar of Wikipedia is because even though you would agree, the consensus is not clear if it is 'keep' or 'merge'. Mkdw talk 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case yes. Ignore all rules. There was not one single vote for deletion, and relisting this after Dorner had been killed in the mountains is fairly absurd considering the massive amount of coverage he got in the final showdown. Merge discussions are already taking place on relevant talk pages, they are not decided in an AFD. Please close this. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * close, please. Deletion rationale no longer applies: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people." BLPCRIME not a valid reason for deletion. Redundant to merge discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Jordan_Dorner#Proposed_merger_from_2013_Southern_California_shootings and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Southern_California_shootings#Merge.2Fredirect --Rybec (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redundant discussion is not a reason to close an AfD that lacks consensus. Please do not take this as an endorse to one side of the argument or another. It would have appeared a merge template and centralized discussion would have been preferable considering the consensus but I will not condemn the nominator for their actions in the AfD considered they have been supported in their guideline based argument by others in the merge & redirect camp. Mkdw talk 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and Close - per above BLP no longer applies as suspect is now dead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It still does, please see WP:BIO1E which applies to everybody. TBrandley (what's up) 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind of torn but Merge and redirect as per RightCowLeftCoast rationale appears best. Otherwise, just keep outright. Quis separabit?  17:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep only because merging seems to imply guilt in all of the murders, and it's likely that this will never be established in at least two of the cases (unfortunately). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Keep--it's valuable information not covered in news features very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.139.114 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

the abuse he suffered while growing up, and apparently no excuse for his firing. There are a lot of things to think about in his story, and lessons for everyone to learn. Please keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.21.249 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- The article, in my humble opinion, is very neutral in stating the facts about this individual. His story is very interesting in that it can be argued that he was a good man, a soldier and policeman who was wronged when he was young, and was fired for doing his duty.  There is no excuse for murdering people, and no justification.  There is also no excuse for
 * Merge & Redirect per RightCow and others. WP:BLP1E still applies, and all of the varius "Keep" votes making arguments in the nature of "This man's story needs to be told!" or "This is valuable information!" does not reflect any Wikipedia policy, and are thus not valid as arguments for an AFD.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to a Bio of a Living person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why was this held over? Will some admin please step up, make a call, and get this out of the queue? Carrite (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep This guy is obviously notable, passes WP:GNG, is reliably sourced, etc etc... IronKnuckle (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Strongest Keep I Could Ever Give Without Cursing The Nominator Out Sorry, if Breivik, Holmes, Loughner can get a page, why can't Dorner? You may or may not see these guys in your textbook, but I urge you to actually read the WP:BLP1E you linked ever so prominently as your basis for nomination. I do not see WP:BLPCRIME being violated on the article, either. Next time think real hard before you make another nomination without basis. Thank you. 24.7.227.169 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2013 (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.