Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiverly Antares Wong


 * 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   no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @275  · 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jiverly Antares Wong

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. This is clearly WP:BIO1E. The subject is known for nothing other than the Binghamton shootings, where his role is covered comprehensively. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly not in violation of WP:BIO1E. The subject is known only for the Binghamton shootings but that is clearly a substantial event being that he ranks 9th of all time on the List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims. I don't see how his information was not put on its own page in the first place. Charles Whitman on the other hand was only involved in one event and the link for University of Texas at Austin massacre on the School shooting page goes directly to Charles Whitman's site. Msimpson607(talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep a mass murderer of this magnitude is notable."If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. " DGG (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Binghamton shootings with the appropriate redirect. It's been awhile since I've seen the "one event" argument, and it's important to remember that that's an essay, not policy.  DGG is correct in saying that it depends on what the one event was.  Thus, nobody would seriously argue that Chesley Sullenberger shouldn't have an article under BIO-1E, and nobody would seriously say, "Well, he has to save another airliner full of people".  On the other hand, as Msimpson notes,  Charles Whitman, who has had a wealth of material written about him, doesn't have an article all of his own.   Although mass shooting incidents are indisputably notable, the amount of attention given by the media to a perpetrator varies.  Most are forgotten within a month after the incident, and that's the case with Mr. Wong.  Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat disingenuous to refer to WP:BIO1E as an "essay" when it is actually a guideline. WWGB (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, WWGB. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E make clear that we don't simply bar an article about a person just because they were famous for one event.  I think that people tend to rely on it as a strict rule, when in reality, it leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation.  Quoting from 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. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."  The examples cited are Gavrilo Princip (whose assassination of Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary led to the First World War) as a notable "one event" person, and George Holliday as a one-event person who was not notable enough for his own article.  I had forgotten George Holliday's name, if I had ever remembered it at all.  He redirects to Rodney King, whose beating Holliday caught on videotape, and although that led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots sparked by the acquittal of the officers who wouldn't have been on trial in the first place but for the videotape, Holliday remains a footnote, never known well enough even to be the answer to a trivia question.   The general rule is that a person known only for one event is can be mentioned in the article about the event, and that in some cases where the person has been the subject of interest thereafter (think Lee Harvey Oswald), they merit an article of their own.  Again, I'm not satisfied that Jiverly Wong will be any more remembered than Wesley Neal Higdon, Michael McClendon, Sulejman Talović, or some of the other persons who have been behind a massacre.  Does anyone here remember Robert Kenneth Stewart?  Probably not, even though he killed 8 people three months ago.  Notable as the event itself was, there is no interest in Robert Kenneth Stewart.  My feeling is that anyone interested in Jiverly Wong can read about him or write about him in the article about the event.  When you we change policy to have individual articles about the people whom he killed, then you can tell me that he deserves a page of his own. Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the information from two articles are to be merged into one article it only makes sense to put the information from the Binghamton shootings site that pertains to Jiverly Wong on the Jiverly Antares Wong page. I myself am from Upstate New York and I have family in Binghamton, New York. Trust me when I say that it will not be forgotten soon. In time the information about Jiverly Antares Wong will greater and even at the present time the amount of information is enough to warrant its own page. Msimpson607(talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference can also be made to Port Arthur massacre in Australia. The killer in this incident was Martin Bryant who also has his own page not combined with the massacre page. The Binghamton shootings are still very recent and more information will be gathered over time.Msimpson607(talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And "still very recent" is the problem. See Robert Kenneth Stewart, above.  Martin Bryant's  | infamy would be easily demonstrated.  Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Binghamton shootings I'm sorry, but this is the same argument I used at Articles for deletion/Philip Markoff(2nd nomination). The media will always make a big deal out of these events, and he is hardly the Zodiac killer. There is not enough evidence of lasting notabilty to ease by WP:BLP concerns. I know WP:BLP1E isn't a hard and fast rule, otherwise Neil Armstrong could be deleted, but this is not enough persistent coverage to qualify an article. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." As for the about not about Martin Bryant's article, firstly WP:OTHERSTUFF and secondly, massacres in Australia are a big deal, and this event had the lasting effect of leading to the biggest gun law changes in Australian history. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:54, 7 July 2009 (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.