Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cho

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. Renaming can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cho

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't mean to come off as being insensitive, but from all appearances, it seems like the only remarkable thing about this individual was the manner of his death. I could not find a thing to show that he was in the least bit notable before this. And while it did eventually prompt his family to sue, there is nothing to indicate that his death and the subsequent lawsuit had any sort of lasting implications that would give him any kind of notability. All of the sources are only news articles pertaining specifically to the shooting and trials, with nothing to indicate that the incident and individual had any lasting notability. In short, while tragic, I can find no sources to keep this article from being anything more than a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Shooting of Michael Cho. The event of Michael Cho's death received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, therefore passing WP:GNG, both when it occurred, and the related lawsuit that was finalized in 2010. However, the subject Michael Cho does not appear to have received significant other than the event that is his shooting and death, therefore this appears to fall under WP:BIO1E and should be redirected to the event. As an event, due to the persistent coverage that occurred after the event itself in 2010, it can be said to meet WP:EVENT. That being said this article should be edited to be about the event and not the individual killed (as it is the event that received the significant coverage, and not the person killed).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and refocus as suggested by RightCowLeftCoast. The shooting is notable and has received sustained coverage. Making the article be about the shooting rather than the victim is consistent with WP:CRIME, as shown in many of our articles titled "Murder of...", "Death of...", "Kidnapping of..." etc. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets GNG because of extensive news coverage. But move toShooting of Michael Cho, or something similar.ShulMaven (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was coverage by the LA Times and OC News Register and subject should meet WP:GNG but the article ought to be renamed Shooting of Michael Cho --Artene50 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.