Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Hawkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AKFrost (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 6 December 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Robert A. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

He's an otherwise non-notable person who's sole notability is summed up in the article for the shooting spree. Dismas|(talk) 06:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Not a noble way to achieve fame, certainly. But the rationale is twofold: first, he is widely reported by secondary sources. Second, I believe he has the requisite amount of historical importance, and his bio (even if short) is encyclopedic: eg, this appears to be a continuing narrative of modern America, these random massacres of the public by troubled young people. I have to say, however, I'm not too happy about Wikipedia's ongoing recentism, but..... you have to follow the policy.Brokethebank (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individual is only notable in the context of the event, for which an article already exists. Previous consensus for Amanda Knox's involvement in the Murder of Meredith Kercher merged the articles in a similar fashion under the same protocol. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the shooting. WP:BLP1E and all that. Daniel 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (but technically, just redirect)... he's only notable in the context of the shooting, which already has an article. --Czj (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't grant this lowlife the notability he could never achieve until he ended his pathetic life. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, there's really no need for that. Regardless of your opinion of the subject, there's no need to go and make such statements, especially given how recent the event was and the fact that people who knew him would probably take offence to such. Wikipedia is a notable website and such comments do us no good in instances like this. Daniel 07:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"people who knew him would probably take offence to such" Are you serious? Nick mallory (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]