Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Purdy


 * 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 Merge to Stockton massacre. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Purdy

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

Although the proposal has been made to merge this article with Stockton massacre, there is nothing to merge that doesn't already exist there. The subject fails WP:BLP1E and there is no reason to have a separate article on him when all the pertinent information exists elsewhere. Trusilver 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though there is not a lot to merge, I'd propose not to delete the page, as a redirect to the Stockton massacre article has to be created anyway. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't see any problem with a redirect to Stockton massacre. Trusilver  00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed I've changed my mind and added information to the article. See also here (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I've read through the additions you have made to the article and while they are good and the article is better than it was before, it is still a violation of WP:BLP1E. When the subject is only know in conjunction with an event he was involved in, we write an article about the event rather than the person. Trusilver  21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Initially I wanted to add the biographical part to the Stockton massacre article, though there are people who are vehemently against this. During a discussion at the talk page of mentioned article I was pointed at the following section of the WP:BIO1E:
 * Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.
 * As there was quite a lot of news coverage exclusively about Purdy's life I'd say we should keep the article about him. Not that I would mind if it was merged into the Stockton massacre article, but then look at the Talk page. Half of it is bitching about even mentioning the perpetrator's name.(Lord Gøn (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Stockton massacre and merge anything not already mentioned in that article. When your most significant accomplishment is to shoot a bunch of kids at an elementary school and then take your own life, you're a dirtbag who doesn't rate his own article. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia  is not an encyclopedia of people notable for good things only. Your suggestion that this is relevant is completely opposed to the idea of a comprehensive encyclopedia, or to NPOV.  DGG (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it can be pretty comprehensively discussed in the article about the crime, and with a redirect, it goes to the appropriate article.  Does it matter if typing in his name takes a person to the article about the crime, rather than to this shrine? Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And how many articles do we need about the same thing? There is already an article about the incident where everything important about the individual has been covered. What does him having his own article really accomplish besides adding irrelevant information? Trusilver  06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the protectors of the Stockton massacre article can be convinced that having a section with biographical information about the perpetrator is not the end of the world, I'm all for merging and redirecting. If not, then keep it, for reasons cited above. It wouldn't be the first of its kind. Just look at Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold etc.(Lord Gøn (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far. Those individuals had significant and extensive press coverage surrounding their motives, as well as their entire lives basically being laid out and examined by the media. Now, you might say that the only reason that the same didn't happen with Patrick Purdy is because he committed his crime about a decade too early. But still, that doesn't change the fact that the "life" section of this article is 90% irrelevant fluff leading up to the last two paragraphs which are the only thing relevant to the crime. Trusilver  02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far. What do you want to say? That he isn't as important as Cho and Harris & Klebold? Well, the shooting certainly was a big story in 1989 and Purdy a person of interest, whose life was examined as far as it is possible, if the subject is a drifter with few personal contacts. And who decides what is "irrelevant fluff" anyway? Is the Background-section of the Charles Whitman article also "irrelevant fluff"? (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A glance at the article shows it is well referenced, and the references' titles alone show that he had significant and extensive press coverage focusing on him, examining his motives and life, like Cho, Harris and Klebold. The world outside Wikipedia clearly considered him notable, so we should too. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong or irrelevant with the life section; once a topic is judged notable, not everything in, or even most of an article has to be related to the cause of notability of the topic, it just has to be related to the notable topic and verifiable.John Z (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Purdy's notability is related solely to the Stockton massacre, in which he is clearly the major figure. It makes little sense, to me, to have two distinct articles. Merge the two under one name or the other, then redirect the remaining title. If there is nothing to merge from the Purdy article, as  Trusilver  indicates, than only a Redirect is needed.  Tim Ross   (talk)  15:00, 10 January 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.