Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lon Horiuchi


 * 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. As this is BLP-related, an explanation may be necessary: WP:BLP1E gives examples of one event as "(a) relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". Arguments are made that Horiuchi would fall under this criteria. Arguments are also made that further newsworthy events such as appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the topic of multiple Ninth Circuit rulings, at least 3 New York Times articles and so on would suggest BLP1E is not applicable. These arguments are more convincing. If there are BLP-related issues within the article, edit them out. Possible vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Neıl ☎  16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lon Horiuchi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:BLP1E, in that this person is notable only for his participation in the Ruby Ridge standoff. The article has been used as a WP:COATRACK in the past; after discussion at the BLP noticeboard it was redirected to Ruby Ridge with a suggestion to merge sourced content there. This redirect was promptly reverted, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. I propose either deletion, or more properly redirection to Ruby Ridge, per WP:BLP1E. MastCell Talk 07:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect &mdash; Horiuchi's conduct and the surrounding controversy should be briefly discussed in the Ruby Ridge article, but we don't have enough for a biography and probably never will. *** Crotalus *** 07:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, I see no difference between the Horiuchi article and Charles Sweeney (pilot who dropped the atomic bomb) or Lawrence Colburn(gunner who stopped the My Lai massacre). This is an example of overuse of BLP - if Horiuchi were dead there would be no question that this article would be relevant to exist, it is heavily referenced (16 citations) and meets all NPOV standards having been edited by more than 50 different editors, with a total of 200 edits. There are 30,000 unique non-WP hits for his name - and anybody who chooses to google his name should be able to turn to Wikipedia for a definitive and neutral account of his actions. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. WP:BLP1E (aka BIO1E) applies to the dead as well. It's an especially good argument here because this individual actually has been the subject of BLP abuse. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who Googles his name will be able to read a definitive and neutral account of his actions, in context, at Ruby Ridge, if this article is redirected. Comparisons to other extant articles (which, in any case, are not particularly apt comparisons) fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MastCell Talk 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect. Article is perennially used to attack this individual, who only known for one event. It's BLP1E COATRACK, as MastCell says. Cool Hand Luke 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any attacks on the individual, such as adding "Category:Terrorists" are quickly reverted - and are not reason enough to simply delete a useful, neutral and relevant article. Otherwise where would WP be if we deleted all articles that drew anonymous attacks? Certainly be lacking articles on most politicians. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're wrong. Obvious vandalism is always reverted, but we're really worried about Seigenthaler-style errors that don't strike anyone as obvious trolling. In fact, an utterly biased misrepresentation was in the article for months, and neither you nor any other editor corrected it&mdash;in fact, you initially edit warred to keep it in the article before a more balanced account was finally submitted (and was later verified and cited by you).
 * Second, BLP violations alone are not a reason to delete, but they add some urgency to the case against marginal articles that should be merged per BLP1E. We believe in doing no harm to living individuals. Because every BLP carries the potential of doing harm, we should only host them if they are truly notable in their own right, and not if they're merely used a coatrack. Cool Hand Luke 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He was also a sniper at Waco, The very reason that I found this page is because I was trying to find out about Lon Horiuchi's role in two separate incidents. That pretty much refutes the argument that he is listed because of his connection to only one incident.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.149.152 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His role at Waco was minor, at least by the sources given in the article. Basically, all that could be said is that he was there, period. Again, any involvement he had there should be covered in Waco siege, assuming it is actually reliably sourced and notable. MastCell Talk 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article will likely be a BLP magnet for fringe types, though.  Yaf (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aside from the rest of the previous arguments to keep, which i agree with entirely, I thought the article was well-written, informative and interesting. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you like it. MastCell Talk 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its a good solid article, and the arguments against are not compelling enough to me to merit its deletion. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect, major WP:BLP violation, should be speedied. Secret account 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to BLP, should be covered in connection to the incidents. I realize he was a sniper at both; that just means he can be covered at both articles. This "biography" isn't one at all. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BLP1E does not mean that individuals notable for a single event should not have biographical articles (consider Lee Harvey Oswald or Paul Tibbets), merely that in some cases it is preferable to discuss their involvement in the article about the incident. In Horiuchi's case, if he had merely been the agent who shot one of the casualties, with no further newsworthy proceedings -- such as with a police officer who shoots a criminal suspect in the course of an arrest -- BLP1E would certainly apply. But here, he was also prosecuted for manslaughter, and testified before Congress, as well as his assignment to the Waco incident, resulting in continued public interest and press coverage. The article, like many others involving controversial figures, will need to be monitored for BLP issues and vandalism, but that is not a reason to delete it. --MCB (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The comparison with Lee Harvey Oswald is uncalled for. BLP1E is specifically intended to cover individuals like this. We have no sources in this article except for a few news stories and a court case; that's not enough demonstration of broad public interest to justify that this person should have an article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure typing his name into google demonstrates the fact there's a lot of "public interest" in Horiuchi, and a lot of biased and incorrect sources - that's why it's important WP step up to the plate with a neutral and full context. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ruby Ridge. Both sides have their merits, but I feel that the best way for the competing concerns of WP:BLP1E and this admittedly notable person is in the context of the larger event. To me, WP:BLP1E represents the default position, from which the odd exception like Oswald per MCB occurs. I am unpersuaded that the subject's subsequent court involvement creates notability outside of the parent event - that is simply a continuation of the fallout of original shooting. The subject certainly merits his own section at Ruby Ridge, and all the sourced content that is there should be moved. However, having the larger context will help keep undue weight and fringe positions from infiltrating and remaining in the article. Xymmax (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (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.