Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston McCoy


 * 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   as follows.  Whenever we have an article where the subject has requested deletion, especally when the individual is genuinely low-profile, we need to have a serious look at the article, its suitability, and whether that request should be granted. As should be obvious to all, an article on a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn't going to go anywhere, but McCoy is nowhere near the same notoriety as a head of government.

I see no credible evidence, that the requested deletion isn't a genuine request from the subject (or his duly appointed representative), so this closure will proceed under the assumption that the request is valid. How much weight to give that request, however, remains under my discretion according to deletion policy. However, there are a few things that most explicitly don't matter, that are worth mentioning here. First is Jimbo's !vote; while he has a delete button, and there is an entire CSD criterion specifically for WMF office actions, they were not used in this case, hence, his arguments must, and are being, considered just as those by any other user. Second, the stuff that has happened on AN/I regarding this AFD, and even the one !vote to delete this article based on those events. Both must be thrown out of my considerations, as truly tangential to this debate and the article at hand.

What we're left with here, is a debate around BLP1E, and this article's standing towards it. In this case, we have a broad, both in numbers and strength or argument, consensus that this is a BLP1E, sufficently so that the subject's deletion request becomes almost immaterial- there is consensus here to delete without using that as any form of "trump card". The result is, therefore, delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Houston McCoy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK problems. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep. Other problems with this article, of which you definitely are aware, attest to the notability of the case. I suspect that silencing this beehive will merely shift the war elsewhere. East of Borschov (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You really shouldn't assume. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the editing, I'm suggesting it because an article on an living individual who's only claim to notability is the fact that he shot a mass murderer and that he suffered problems from that.  Unless you think the details about his personal life are notable, the "Houston McCoy was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 1998 by a doctor from the Department of Veterans Affairs in Waco, Texas, who attributed the condition to the tower shooting three decades earlier" here pretty much summarizes the entirety of this article.  I feel the same way about Ramiro Martinez but I'll see how this discussion goes before that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Searching all of the links above yield results except in Google scholar. He is high-profile in articles about the Texas Tower shooting. Blocking a user doesn't cast this article into the dump pile. It has a large number of other editors and it is fairly well sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced, and more than one event is attached to the person. I don't think deleting this or merging it into some other article really solves anything, especially behvaiorial problems of an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really disputing this, but what is the second event you are identifying? In reading the article there seems to be a lot about the shooting, and a couple of related issues (such as the worker's comp claim in regard to the shooting), but nothing that's clearly a second event. Am I missing something, or do you see this differently? - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a second event, precisely, but is linked to the original event: I'm referring to the dispute with the city over the Workman's Comp case. Yes, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "second event" per se, but I think it's significant in terms of PTSD and how it's dealt with.  In any case, in my mind it extends his notability past the actual Whitman incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's fair enough. :) I'll need to think about my own take on it, but it gives me something to think about. - Bilby (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is merging it into Charles Whitman a good idea?-- Pink Bull  04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so, there's too much information which is pertinent to an article on McCoy, but irrelevant to an article of Whitman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would make sense if the Charles Whitman article would be renamed and reformatted to an article about the incident, as is the norm for these types of WP:ONEEVENT type of situations. -- Pink Bull  06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like how we separate Seung-Hui Cho from Virginia Tech massacre? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having an article on the incident and the killer (as the Virgina Tech massacre) makes more sense then having an article on the killer and the person who killed the killer (as in this situation), in my opinion.
 * But regardless, I did not read the other comments here and did not realize the background leading up to the Afd nomination. If the article is being used to bother a person in real life it should be deleted. This is a close call to begin with because McCoy's notability does appear to originate from one event. In circumstances like these, it would probably be most appropriate to lean towards deletion. I think its due to situations like these that we have in place the WP:BLP1E policy. We don't want to be in a situation where we "have" to have an article on a quasi-notable person because at one point in the person's life (s)he received significant coverage in reliable sources.
 * Note, that even if deleted, the battle regarding this person will most likely shift to Charles_Whitman. But the total removal of any mention of McCoy is not a good idea and is not supported by any Wikipedia policy.-- Pink Bull  14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that, speaking in general, the idea that objections from the subject of an article should be consider in an AfD dsicussion is a dangerous one, since it sets up a circumstance whereby the encyclopedia might be manipulated to its detriment by artifically created controversies. The way to deal with objections is to insure that articles are accurate, fair, sourced, and strictly NPOV, not by considering deletion.  That said, I will agree that in this particular case, notability is on the cusp, and editors can easily disagree whether it should be kept or deleted on that basis.  I do not, however, agree that outside considerations should play any significant part in these discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably agree with that. This does not present a case where personal objections are being used to trump Wikipedia policy. The circumstances here establish a case of WP:BLP1E. If not for the real-life issues, I would have ignored the Afd or perhaps even voted to keep, only because the article as it currently stands is well written and well-sourced. However, now that the subject requests deletion because the article causes him distress, I would fall in line with WP:BLP1E and vote to delete.-- Pink Bull  02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the other events? Here is one -- he sued MGM over how he was portrayed in a movie based on the shooting.  Maybe you would argue that this is not a separate event?  Several years ago, when blp1e was new, a wiseguy suggested we should merge the article on UK PM Tony Blair into the article on George W. Bush -- because no one would have ever heard of him if it weren't his support of Bush's war policy.  McCoy sued the studio.  If we were going to try to shoehorn that into another article why shouldn't it be shoehorned into the article on the movie?  When there are multiple targets one could argue an article should be merged into I think that is a strong argument that the article should not be merged.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete (indeed, there is a case for speedy here). The claim of notability for this individual is a weak one, and the article has persistently been misused as a forum for harassment and/or the perpetuation of external disputes. As a result, deletion has been requested by the article subject and members of his family over a period of years, and while that is obviously not controlling in our deletion and content discussions, it bears significant weight when the claim of article-worthiness is as thin as it is here. This is a situation, of a type that is more and more common, whether the role of the Internet in perpetuating privacy-invading, negative, and disputed information about an individual has the effect of damaging, in actuality or perception, that individual's life. Wikipedia is not the chief offender in this instance, because the underlying contents of the article will remain readily available whether or not this article or some of its content is deleted, but we ought not to gratuitously magnify the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - However the article has been used is something that should, and has been, dealt with outside of deleting the article. And my response to the subject and his family requesting deletion can best be answer with Don Murphy. Now, his article results in the opposite, that editors on Wikipedia are the targets of harassment, as well as damaging, in actuality or perception, the editors here, but if Murphy's article still exists, then I believe this one should also. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The two articles and the underlying situations should be addressed on their own merits; the analogy between the two articles is a weak one, and injecting Don Murphy into this discussion strikes me as totally unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you on the OTRS team? If so is your assertion that the family requested deletion based on your review of an OTRS ticket?  In general I am inclined to ignore assertions that the subject requested deletion, when there is no OTRS ticket to verify that a request actually came from the subject of the article.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a large deleted history on the talk page. Also, a particular (now blocked) editor with a personal COI with the situation has recently been posting complaints he made years ago.  Nevertheless, I think this article can be deleted on its own merits, regardless of the prior history.  In my mind, Newyorkbrad, if the history has been deleted, it is best not to discuss it at all.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I would like to be crystal clear on this -- has anyone who has access to the OTRS logs confirmed that McCoy, or a family member of his, has requested this article be removed. I suggest that if there is no OTRS confirmation we discount all claims that he requested removal.  Unfortunately there are partisan POV-pushers on the wikipedia, and claiming the subject requested removal, or even impersonating the subject of an articles is a trick some vandals use.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I would like to be crystal clear on this -- has anyone who has access to the OTRS logs confirmed that McCoy, or a family member of his, has requested this article be removed. I suggest that if there is no OTRS confirmation we discount all claims that he requested removal.  Unfortunately there are partisan POV-pushers on the wikipedia, and claiming the subject requested removal, or even impersonating the subject of an articles is a trick some vandals use.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's nothing notable here at all. The one event for which his name is brought forward is the Whitman shooting, and it is appropriately covered in that article. The entire PTSD/worker's compensation issue is irrelevant, and is a fairly normal act of due diligence on the part of an employer faced with a compensation board finding that they believe will be onerous; it would never have made the newspapers if not for McCoy's name being attached to it, because it's such a common event. The article doesn't even say what the outcome of the worker compensation matter is. There is no relevant material in this article that is not covered elsewhere. Add on the requests for deletion from the subject and his family over the course of years, and really, deletion is the only logical conclusion. Articles like this are backwater BLP problems that won't be resolved by any fancy technology. Risker (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've never commented on this type of stuff before. As a "user", I found the page useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedzsan (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: the pertinent information can be included in "Charles Whitman" or an article about the incident. fwiw, I think Ramiro Martinez is also not-notable, however deletion is less important there as Ramiro Martinez has not receded from the spotlight like Houston McCoy has. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- John Vandenberg (chat) 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The blp1e assertions are, IMO, inappropriate, if Houston himself is covered in WP:RS which don't focus on the shooting incident. I believe the references supplied so far make clear this is the case.  WRT the WP:COATRACK essay -- this essay is routinely mis-cited in afd, (1) as if it were a policy; and (2) ignoring its actual advice.  The Coatrack essay is clear in its advice that deletion should be a last resort when attempting to deal with a coatrack concern.  There is no record on Talk:Houston McCoy that the nominator, or anyone else, ever tried to raise this coatrack concern.  The coatrack essay makes some interesting points.  I like the names the author of the coatrack essay gave to different kinds of coatracks.  I like the "wongo-juice" name best.  What I generally find, when people claim authority under the coatrack policy, is that when they are asked to be specific about which of the different types of coatrack described in the essay they think an article contains an instance of, they are unwilling or unable to do so.  For me this very seriously erodes how much confidence I have in their arguments.  So, I ask our nominator to be specific -- which kind of coatrack do you see here?  And why didn't you voice your concern on the talk page, instead of nominating the article for deletion?  Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll explain. The problem is that this page claims to be on the person who shot Whitman but in reality is simply on the Whitman shooting itself.  The vast majority of the text (the "Confrontation with Charles Whitman" section) is focused on the events of one day.  The BLP issues comes from that section describing what the following (I'm guessing) living individuals did: McCoy, Jerry Ray, Ramiro Martinez and Allen Crum.  The problem is that's poorly sourced (a single link at the end isn't sufficient) and instead of having a single place to discuss the details of the event (and yes, whether or not they charged up or they ran up or if Martinez shot him afterwards or didn't has been disputed), there are multiple articles containing the same information all with slight differences.  As to the talk page, if I think an article should be deleted, what am I supposed to say on the talk  page?  "Hey, I think this article should be deleted but instead of actually listing it and having the discussion, let's talk about it here and decide whether to list it and have a second discussion"?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, in your reply, were you trying to explain why you called on the authority of WP:COATRACK? Suppose you succeed, please explain how you would answer challenges that your shoehorning of all the coverage of McCoy's PTSD, McCoy's awards, McCoy's lawsuit against MGM, and journalist's attempts to get McCoy's comments on the Virginia Tech shootings, into the Charles Whitman article lapsed from COATRACK?  That material has nothing to do with Whitman, and doesn't belong in an article about him.
 * Multiple articles offering conflicting accounts of a single event, without reference to one another, is a problem. You suggested that the solution to this is to confine all coverage of the incident to Charles Whitman.  However, if Martinez and/or McCoy are independently notable, then an equally valid approach would be fork that section into a separate article, and having each article have an introductory paragraph, followed by main or seealso template directing readers to the new Confrontation with Charles Whitman article.
 * Blp1e is inapplicable, because there are multiple events -- including Martinez and McCoy suing MGM in 2004. Was there some other BLP issue that concerned you?  If so could you please spell it out?
 * Why should you have raised your concerns on the talk page? Because you asserted deletion was authorized on the basis of WP:COATRACK.  I am going to mention, again, that COATRACK is an essay, not a policy.  And its advice is that deletion should be a last resort, when one has a COATRACK concern.  You are not using deletion as a last resort, as the essay you cited recommends.  Instead it was your first reaction.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Magic 8-Ball sayz: Delete per all the del-!votes above from the folks with seriouz-clue. I did look this over myself, too ;) [repetition of arguments omitted]. Jack Merridew 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sole Soul (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- various readers have hinted at a mysterious past history of problems with this article. Unfortunately, the efforts to excise all history of these problems have robbed the rest of us of the context we need to reach our conclusions as to the future of this article.  The article's talk page has been courtesy blanked, multiple times.  But those performing those courtesy blankings made no effort to inform the rest of us that there had been courtesy blanking.  They didn't say why they performed the courtesy blnaking.  They didn't offer a brief summary of the material on the talk page, when they performed the courtesy blanking. This is important because some contibutors here, citing those past problems, have said that the article should be deleted, with no attempt made to merge material into other articles.  Others, with knowledge of these mysterious past problems have asserted that deletion, with no merge, will just force the problems previously confined to this article into other articles. I suggest someone with access to the deleted material read it, and offer a brief and non-inflammatory description of these mysterious past problems.  I suggest this afd should be relisted once the description of the mysterious past problems has been provided, and we can all reach an informed conclusion.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - My gut feeling on this is that since Jimbo Wales wants it deleted, then anyone with a modicum of power, or a desire to have a modicum of power, appear to jump on the bandwagon. Not to mention that there have been some rather bad faith comments about those who posted to support retention vs. those in power (or those characterized as having a "seriouz-clue", while those who have posted to support retention have been summarily dismissed with those words, apparently we don't have a "seriouz-clue". There have several reasons given for why WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, including a highly publicized suit for Workman's Comp as a result of the whole incident as well as the lawsuit against the film company. WP:COATRACK hasn't been given a rationale for why this is coatrack. I'm aware of the meat and potatoes of the mysterious past history, and although my comparison to another article subject wanting his article deleted was also summarily dismissed, I'd venture to say that anyone related to McCoy has not engaged in wholesale harassment of editors on Wikipedia while touting an agenda to get it deleted. This person is notable and there is an agenda at work here to get this article deleted. That content is not suitable for merging with the Whitman article as it goes well beyond the scope of that article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to argue that the only reason I listed it is because Jimbo wanted it, feel free to ignore the other articles I've listed. In fact, instead of waiting, I've listed Ramiro Martinez as well.  As to the merger question, what part of the article isn't already at Charles_Whitman?  Both McCoy's confrontation with Whitman (the largest part) and details regarding the PTSD diagnosis are there (or at least summarized).  Is it your feeling that the information about McCoy's high school, his marriage, or the awards he has received because of the shooting either cannot be incorporated into the Whitman section or are so notable they deserve to be kept in a separate article?  Last, I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized.  The only source about it describes it as "Cop who killed UT sniper", indicating that it's only notable because of who filed the suit, not about the case itself.  It doesn't like a published opinion, some crucial legal issue (like the length of time for a PTSD diagnosis) or would even have been reported short of the individual filing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT merging: (1) the material on McCoy's lawsuit against MGM, his awards, his PTSD -- they don't really have anything to do with Charles Whitman. You cited the WP:COATRACK essay, as if it were an official policy, and you may have been trying to defend that as a justification for deletion, asserting that the material on the texas tower incident was really about Whitman, not McCoy, and didn't belong in an article on McCoy.  Please don't both call on the authority of wiki-essays -- and ignore their advice.  Shoehorning that information into the Whitman article lapses from the advice of the essay even more than the examples you cited earlier.
 * You write "I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized..." Are you questioning whether the reference you assert was the only reference was an WP:RS?  You seem to have overlooked the reference I added about the lawsuit.  Are you questioning whether that reference was an WP:RS?  I think if you review WP:NOTNEWS, you will see that tabloid style "publicity" is supposed to play a limited role in our decisions over notability.
 * Some participants here have argued that any kind of merging is a bad idea -- due to unspecified vandalism, or slander, or something. You seem to know something of this past history.  But you haven't addressed the view they seem to be putting forward, that merging any other article with material from this article would irredeemably make that article a magnet for the same vaguely hinted at vandalism or slander campaign.  As the nominator I request you address their concerns.
 * When someone suggests an article should be merged, but there are multiple articles for which there are reasonable arguments it should be merged, I think this is a strong argument that the article should remain a separate article. I suggest that is the case here.
 * The book on suicide by cop -- a phenomenon that was unrecognized in 1966, stated that McCoy said Whitman could have shot him and Martinez, and didn't, because he was waiting for the police to shoot him. As a cop who described the suicide by cop phenomenon decades before it was identified as a pattern, as possibly the first cop to describe this phenomenon, an argument could be made that suicide by cop was an appropriate place to merge this article.
 * We don't have an article on the movie The deadly tower. The topic of the movie merits its own article, because only part of it relates to Whitman.
 * Various of the references I read as I looked into this afd stated that the shootings drove home the need for police forces to train and equip SWAT teams. So SWAT team would be an additional possible target for a merge.
 * Merging with any of these articles undermines the value of the wikipedia's coverage of McCoy for readers interested in the role McCoy played in the other topics. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete not really enough to survive WP:ONEEVENT. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This individual is not notable for anything other than this one event, and regarding other aspects of the subject's life, there seems to be nothing more than trivial information. In cases of borderline notability, the wishes of the article subject should be respected.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As that wise-guy, who suggested the Tony Blair article be merged with the George W. Bush article, on blp1e grounds pointed out, the judgement as to what is "trivial" is highly subjective. The wise-guy claimed everything in the Tony Blair article was "trivial", except that he supported the Bush war policy.
 * You assert McCoy's wishes should be respected. As I have asked other people who have made this assertion, did you review an OTRS ticket that showed that a request for deletion was received, and verified to have come from McCoy?  No one else has been able to document that McCoy did, in fact, request the article be deleted.  So I suggest we ignore the suggestion he requested deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is not about anything encyclopaedic. The gentleman's personal life is only of prurient interest even where citations exist. He is not notable except for one single event. And one tends not to be notable for simply doing one's job. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen this "Simply doing his/her job" argument before. I would like to see it added to the "arguments to avoid" essay.  One could make this argument about almost all of the clearly notable individuals who have individual articles.  One could make this argument about all the US astronauts, for instance.
 * This article could do with significant improvement. Frankly, so could the article on Charles Whitman.  As I looked into all this, in the last few days, I came across WP:RS that covered elements that aren't properly covered in any of the related articles -- included the one on Charles Whitman.
 * Some WP:RS described the incident as triggering the recognition of the need for Police departments to train, equip and field SWAT teams. I believe, with more research, WP:RS that specifically said the personal troubles McCoy faced would have been lessened or would not have existed, if he had been prepared for this kind of assault through modern SWAT team training, and if he had the after-incident psychological counselling SWAT team members are supposed to get.  Some of the WP:RS I came across certainly implied this.
 * I added a reference that addressed the "suicide by cop" angle of the incident. The Charles Whitman article did not address this angle.  The book I recently cited specifically stated McCoy thought that Whitman could have shot him and Martinez, and chose not to, because he was waiting for cops to come shoot him.
 * So, no, I do not agree that McCoy's life is of "only prurient interest". Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You do say a little in a lot of words, don't you? In this case you might make a better point by saying less. I notice a lot of rhetoric, but got bored at about word ten. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete For no other reason than the antics of certain 'random IPs' *cough* on AN/I. Half  Shadow  21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just want to clearly note that although a registered editor was blocked based on the assumption that certain 'random IPs' *cough* on AN/I, they did not run a checkuser on those IPs, all of which tracerouted and geolocated far, far away from where the registered editor is located. So I don't accept that as a valid rationale. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I found the article interesting, "15 minutes of fame" doesn't seem like a valid notability criterion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He was notable enough that he was sought out by interviewers following the Virginia Tech shootings 41 years later. So please consider this "41 years of fame" -- not "15 minutes of fame".  Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me more like 15 minutes, with another 15 minutes 41 years later. Interviewers do dig up old stories now and then. There are a bunch of "Where are they now?" stories I would write if I had the time and was getting paid for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't feel this subject is notable enough to merit his own article. Perhaps it could be merged into a broader article documenting the entire incident? Chicken  monkey  00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with qualification: I am persuaded by the argument that this article falls under the prohibitions of WP:BLP1E, and thus should be deleted. However, I wish that when the determination is made, we could have final decisions include clear "arguments" like a court decision would from a judge.  My concern is that it be absolutely clear that we are deleting this issue only because of WP:BLP1E, and that the personal appeals of the subject and/or any high ranking members of the WP team have no persuasive power.  I would like it clear that we are not setting a precedent that personal appeals from BLP subjects have any bearing on our decisions.  That is, if a person meets our guidelines, and our information is properly sourced, that person does not have recourse to have the info removed for any reason.  I know that this is current policy, but I wouldn't want this AfD to make others believe that our policy is shifting.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The suicide by cop quote really must be kept. Also, if this is a BLP1E issue, the proper course is to create and article about the event, or redirect to the one that exists.  In this case, the article is the shooter's article.  I don't think that's logical, exactly. Houston McCoy is not an element in the life of Charles Whitman, he's an element in the U of Texas shootings.  - BalthCat (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record -- although several people have claimed McCoy, or his family, requested the article be deleted, no one has cited an OTRS ticket number, showing that this request was received and verified to be from McCoy or his family. Maybe there was a (unverified) request, left by an IP on the now deleted talk page.  That would be far from sufficient for me to trust it really came from McCoy or his family, as some pov-pushers have been known to spoof that kind of request.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems.  BLP1E is one aspect of a wider problem.  The real question is not "Is this person known for only one event" - although that's almost always a valid indicator pointing to the real question "Do we have enough information about this person to write a legitimate biography?"  In this case, we know almost nothing from reliable sources, outside of what he did on the day of the shooting.  We know he filed a workman's comp case years later.  We know he didn't get a penny from suing MGM about the movie.  But we don't know a million and one other things, some subset of which would make him independently interesting and allow us to write a quality biography.  I should like to add that just as "Jimbo wants it deleted" is no argument for having it deleted (and is not an argument that anyone actually made), "Jimbo wants it deleted" is no argument for keeping it, and a bit insulting to those who happen to agree with me, most of whom I haven't spoken to about this entry at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard biographical information, d.o.b., marital status, academic career, career prior to, and after, whatever made an individual noteworthy is desirable. I suggest however, it should all be considered incidental.  I have suggested however that there are individuals who merit an article in the wikipedia, even though we know absolutely nothing about them.  False Geber was my poster-boy.  In the middle ages, when books were written long-hand, some educated men, who wanted to have their ideas widely distributed, even if they didn't get credit, attributed their new original work, to a famous scholar from the past.  "False Geber" attributed his work to Jābir ibn Hayyān, an Arabic polymath who had lived several hundred years earlier.  Unlike most of the other guys who attributed their new original work to other people "false Geber" published something truly important, the process for purifying and using Sulfuric acid.  So Issac Asimov included him in his excellent Biographical Encyclopedia of Science, which covered the 1000 most important scientists in history, in Asimov's position.  I wrote more about the lessons Asimov's biography of "false geber" hold for us here, and here.
 * The Comment above states "But we don't know a million and one other things, some subset of which would make him independently interesting and allow us to write a quality biography." I'd like to know whether you are suggesting we delete all biographies that are not "quality biographies"?  If so could you please explain whether a "quality biography" differs from the biographies that comply with our existing wikipolicies on biographies?  It seems to me that this biography does comply with our policies on biographies.
 * Two years or so ago one of the volunteers who focussed on organizing our biographical articles told me the wikipedia then had over 800,000 biographical articles. How many of those articles have gone through the vetting process to be considered "good quality" articles?  Isn't it a very small fraction?  Articles that are read frequently by intelligent readers, who are also contributors are the ones most likely to officially listed as "good quality" articles.  But other articles, that cite good WP:RS, and are written from a neutral point of view, remain useful, even if they lack polish.  Depending on the topics that interest them, I bet there are regular readers, who find the wikipedia an excellent resources, who have never read one of our "good quality" articles or featured articles.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking over Jimbo's commentary, I don't believe he used the term "quality biography" in the same sense as "good article" or "featured article" as you are interpreting the phrase. Rather, it seems to me he meant "quality" in the sense of containing sufficient biographical information about a person's life that the article merits being called a "biography". This article fails being a biography in that sense. And to your last point, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article does, roughly, comply with our policies on biographies (in terms of how it is written and sourced), but it does not comply with our policies on notability. Wikipedia is a work in progress and, as such, it currently includes loads of articles that, while being of good quality, are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. A quality biography could be written on any of us. The benchmark for inclusion is, I would think, notability. Houston McCoy does not meet that benchmark. The fact that we do not have an adequate amount of reliable sources to improve the quality of our coverage on him is merely a supplementary detail. Chicken  monkey  21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google book search for his name and the word "shooting" and you see many books about such things do mention him, this a notable case. He also, decades after the shooting event, was interviewed by national news media, asked to give expert commentary on the Virgina Tech shooting. People still consider him notable enough to write about and talk to.   D r e a m Focus  00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not an easy one, the article has been on my watch list for about a year now, and i looked at it a few times in this period always wondering and trying to figure out why it was there. in our encyclopedia. With no satisfying answer. I agree with Jimbo and some of the other editors that there is not enough substance to write a valuable notable biography. IQinn (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The one event was clearly notable enough for an article, but not for a standalone biography due solely to his involvement in that one event. First Light (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't know enough to write a proper bio; the information in this article is covered elsewhere; and the subject has requested that it be deleted, which means there's a strong presumption in favour of deletion. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Much as I hate to hop on the bandwagon, I really did try to think of a response to Jimbo's point that articles on people should be quality biographies.  The only thing I could think of was the issue of not much being known of someone save for one event, and I think that information would be better dealt with in the article on the event itself.  If someone else can think of an objection, I would happily change my #vote (not that it would matter), but I honestly can't think of one.  My thoughts ran to Anaxamander, a greek philosopher of whom we know next to nothing, but that article is far, far more informative than this.  I'm torn here. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2010 (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.