672:(which I'm about to incur the combined wrath of dog-lovers and nazis for by prodding). As it stands she has no reason to have her own page other than being catapulted into the public eye by something a relative's done, and I agree with all those above who say that it's horribly insensitive to have a page on her up which serves no use other than prurience and will probably become a vandalism target
333:. I take exception to your characterization. In fact I am very sensitive to the family's grief. However, by her actions Sun-Kyong has placed herself on the public stage by becoming a spokesperson for the family. She's been the subject of many reliably sourced articles. Can you explain why you think this is insensitive and inappropriate?
620:
this. Even if she would have preferred to keep her privacy, it would have been very difficult for her not to comment (especially as the parents apparently hardly speak
English), and the press would no doubt have made her seem insensitive if she had declined doing that. But she is so far not known for
195:
No notability beyond being a relative of someone infamous. She is a primary source about a legitimate article subject, not a legitimate article subject herself. Articles should not be written based on speculation that a subject may become famous in his or her own right, so unless she does Oprah and
433:
per
Dynaflow. No justification for including information about someone who not only has not established notability, but may very well in fact be wanting to avoid the public spotlight after this horror. We should not forget that we are human beings and we should show empathy for fellow humans. Please
224:
that we should bother. Notability generally takes some time to develop; most people don't become notable overnight. We all know examples of relatives of killers or other criminals that have had a few minutes' attention only to slide back into their preferred obscurity. A few minutes' attention isn't
558:
Hard to believe we're having this discussion at all. The sister is simply commenting what someone else has done. ACK Mikeblas: Exposure is not notability. Apart from that, a teeny bit of respect towards a person who has been involuntarily catapulted into the spotlights of the international media
342:
I should clarify that it's the presence of the article I find insensitive, rather than the subjective attitude of the contributors. Despite feeling compelled to make some statements, it's an involuntary notability and likely a fleeting one, and this article puts the focus very much in the wrong
176:
of multiple independent reliable references, which I believe she has been. There is no exception for whether she was only made famous by being the relative of a mass murder, or whether she deserves to have privacy, etc. I sympathize with Ms. Cho and her family, however, I think by any fair
374:-- she was mentioned in every newspaper published today but that does not mean that she will continue to be the subject of public interest in the future. As a remote second choice, redirect and merge to the article about her notorious brother, who
744:
as unnecessary, although she can and should be mentioned in the article about her brother since she has made public statements regarding his actions. Otherwise I don't see the need for her to have a separate article.
896:- She is only known by association, she has herself done nothing that meets the requirements for Knowledge recognition. And the article's not even written in an encyclopedic fashion. A speedy delete is needed. --
571:- maybe mention her in the article on her brother, or recreate when she does become notable, but making a statement to the press and being the sister of a murderer do not constitute notability.
251:
per
Charlene. She works for the State Dept., so who knows what she could go on to do. For now, though, no real accomplishments that merit an article -- just an accident of birth. —
637:
I will fully support this article's recreation should she ever become notable for anything other than being related to and making a statement about an infamous spree killer.
110:
292:- no but that's not the argument here - it's that she has become notable both through her actions and by how she may have been an influence in her brother's life.
668:
without prejudice. It could be that her work in
Baghdad will lead to her becoming N in her own right, but at present this page is as inappropriate as the page on
621:
anything else and does not deserve the punishment of a page on
Knowledge reminding everybody she ever meets that she is the sister of the Virginia Tech killer. (
789:
she's clearly notable. But that says more about what a mind-numbingly awful guideline notability is than it says about the appopriateness of this article. --
319:. Grossly insensitive and inappropriate, and I am likely to speedy it very soon unless convinced otherwise by arguments much stronger than those here.
310:, all arguments for deletion are based on subjective reasons. All the information comes from Time magazine New York Times, and others prime sources. --
705:
Actually, she doesn't even work in
Baghdad, but in "an annex near the department's offices in Washington". In case this is kept, I've sourced that.--
625:) If she ever becomes "notable" in her own right, I suppose the relationship is difficult to avoid, but that can be dealt with at that future time.
421:. As Dynaflow, just a relative of someone infamous. She could achieve notability in her own right, but hasn't yet. Exposure is not notability. --
311:
150:
with the difficulties face by her brother. In addition, her eloquence has helped the world to sympathize with her family's predicament.
83:
78:
142:, not just the source of multiple, independent reliable sources (see talk page). Her prominence and 'rising star' career has been
87:
801:. If it wasn't for her brother, would she still have an article? Being the sister of a murderer does not make someone notable.
447:
17:
70:
216:
without prejudice to recreation should she become notable in the future. We'd have to be awfully careful not to contravene
623:
And please make sure this discussion does not get into Google's cache or the many sites copying
Knowledge content either.
407:
583:- She is notable as a spokesperson and this should be given time to expand as the first victim of her brother Emily.
146:
as a contributing factor in her brother's psychological make-up. Her success as the daughter of immigrants has been
723:
Totally unnecessary and most certainly it's mere prescence (unless she does something notable on her own) violates
277:
915:
36:
914:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
143:
687:
900:
888:
876:
864:
846:
826:
805:
793:
773:
749:
736:
713:
697:
660:
657:
641:
629:
611:
587:
575:
563:
548:
536:
520:
498:
494:. She is a private person and not notable, except for a relative who was notorious, like Hitler's sister.
482:
470:
450:
438:
425:
413:
382:
356:
347:
337:
323:
296:
282:
255:
243:
231:
206:
185:
154:
125:
52:
842:, then they should try to have them changed. Unless they do, this article meets those requirements. --
74:
757:
She is not notable, and only is brought to attention through the mishaps brought about by her brother.
675:
802:
654:
545:
820:
533:
379:
66:
58:
462:. Therefore her 'notability' such as it is is inseparable from the incident, and can be more than
263:
per
Dynaflow. If Cho didn't commit the mass murder, would she still be on Knowledge? I think not.
710:
608:
843:
728:
638:
491:
226:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
560:
401:
371:
344:
320:
595:, she is not notable and deserves whatever scraps of privacy she has left. For comparison,
885:
766:
596:
572:
122:
121:. Contested speedy; I think this one deserves a full AFD debate. See article talk page.
858:
835:
786:
626:
479:
396:
271:
252:
240:
147:
897:
873:
839:
790:
782:
746:
724:
706:
650:
604:
511:
507:
435:
422:
353:
334:
307:
293:
217:
197:
182:
178:
169:
151:
135:
118:
584:
478:. Relatives of well-known figures are almost never notable except in rare cases.
104:
653:
is the place for content on his family and family's reaction to the massacre. -
495:
467:
391:
49:
884:, non-notable, shouldn't be given an article because of what her brother did--
814:
458:. Not notable before this incident, not notable apart from this incident, and
855:
600:
265:
434:
let this woman have her privacy, as it is apparent that is what she wants.
220:
here, and to be honest I don't think she's notable enough in her own right
544:
Not notable in any way, other than her relation to the psycho killer.
172:. The standard for inclusion is clear: it is whether she has been the
669:
168:
votes, I find few that directly address whether this article meets
343:
place. Given your reasonable comments I won't speedy it, however.
352:
Thanks, I see your point and appreciate the thoughtful response.
908:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
649:. Merge relevant info to the brother's and massacre's pages.
378:
likely to be the subject of public interest in the future. --
603:
and has written and spoken publicly about this decision. --
872:, just mentioning it in his brother's article suffice. --
781:
Well, according to
Knowledge's definition of notable at
100:
96:
92:
134:
Her notability is established well past the level for
464:
adequately addressed in the article on that incident
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
918:). No further edits should be made to this page.
370:per other delete comments. This article is pure
196:gets a book deal out of this, I say no dice. --
8:
813:, preferably speedily. Good grief. --
7:
390:Multiple sources, but kind of thin.
599:actually turned in his brother the
24:
854:, not notable in and of herself.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
312:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
225:enough to prove notability. --
1:
181:this article should remain.
834:if people don't agree with
935:
901:01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
889:00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
877:23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
865:23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
847:23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
827:21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
806:21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
794:21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
774:18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
750:16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
737:14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
714:19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
698:11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
661:09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
642:08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
630:06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
612:05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
588:05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
576:05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
564:05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
549:05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
537:05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
521:05:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
499:05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
483:04:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
471:04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
451:04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
448:Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x)
439:04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
426:03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
414:03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
383:03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
357:03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
348:03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
338:03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
324:03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
297:03:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
283:02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
256:02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
244:02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
232:02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
207:01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
186:15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
155:01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
126:01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
117:Sister of Va. Tech killer
53:01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
490:Per reasons in the essay
911:Please do not modify it.
559:wouldn't hurt either. --
32:Please do not modify it.
446:Utterly unnecessary. --
460:not asserted as such
164:Reading through the
409:We are all Hokies!
177:interpretation of
863:
862:formerly Ashibaka
694:
412:
926:
913:
861:
823:
817:
769:
734:
731:
696:
693:
688:
685:
680:
518:
410:
406:
404:
399:
394:
304:Keep and bulk up
229:
204:
108:
90:
34:
934:
933:
929:
928:
927:
925:
924:
923:
922:
916:deletion review
909:
821:
815:
803:AgentPeppermint
772:
767:
763:
760:
732:
729:
689:
681:
676:
673:
597:David Kaczynski
512:
408:
402:
397:
392:
227:
198:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
932:
930:
921:
920:
904:
903:
891:
879:
867:
849:
829:
808:
796:
776:
764:
761:
758:
752:
739:
718:
717:
716:
663:
644:
632:
614:
590:
578:
566:
552:
551:
539:
534:DickClarkMises
532:per Ronnotel.
526:
525:
524:
523:
502:
501:
485:
473:
453:
441:
428:
416:
385:
380:Metropolitan90
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
327:
326:
314:
300:
299:
286:
285:
258:
246:
234:
210:
209:
189:
188:
158:
157:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
931:
919:
917:
912:
906:
905:
902:
899:
895:
894:Speedy Delete
892:
890:
887:
883:
882:Speedy delete
880:
878:
875:
871:
870:Strong delete
868:
866:
860:
857:
853:
850:
848:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
828:
824:
818:
812:
809:
807:
804:
800:
797:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
777:
775:
771:
770:
756:
753:
751:
748:
743:
740:
738:
735:
726:
722:
719:
715:
712:
708:
704:
701:
700:
699:
695:
692:
691:(talk to me!)
686:
684:
679:
671:
667:
664:
662:
659:
656:
652:
651:Seung-Hui Cho
648:
647:Strong delete
645:
643:
640:
636:
633:
631:
628:
624:
619:
615:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:Strong delete
591:
589:
586:
582:
579:
577:
574:
570:
567:
565:
562:
557:
556:Speedy Delete
554:
553:
550:
547:
543:
540:
538:
535:
531:
528:
527:
522:
519:
517:
516:
509:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
481:
477:
476:Speedy Delete
474:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
452:
449:
445:
442:
440:
437:
432:
429:
427:
424:
420:
417:
415:
411:
405:
400:
395:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
365:
358:
355:
351:
350:
349:
346:
341:
340:
339:
336:
332:
329:
328:
325:
322:
318:
315:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
298:
295:
291:
288:
287:
284:
280:
279:
274:
273:
268:
267:
262:
259:
257:
254:
250:
247:
245:
242:
239:per Dynaflow
238:
235:
233:
230:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
208:
205:
203:
202:
194:
191:
190:
187:
184:
180:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
159:
156:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:. She is the
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
120:
119:Seung-hui Cho
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:Sun-Kyung Cho
64:
63:
60:
59:Sun-Kyung Cho
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
46:speedy delete
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
910:
907:
893:
881:
869:
851:
844:Craigtalbert
831:
810:
798:
778:
765:
754:
741:
720:
702:
690:
682:
677:
670:Hitler's dog
665:
646:
639:Jeff Silvers
634:
622:
617:
592:
580:
568:
555:
541:
529:
514:
513:
487:
475:
463:
459:
455:
443:
430:
418:
387:
375:
367:
330:
316:
303:
289:
276:
269:
264:
260:
248:
236:
221:
213:
200:
199:
192:
173:
165:
161:
139:
131:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
832:Strong Keep
616:No, please
561:Ibn Battuta
345:Newyorkbrad
321:Newyorkbrad
886:Daveswagon
573:Biruitorul
492:WP:NOTNEWS
388:Weak keep.
148:contrasted
123:NawlinWiki
627:Pharamond
601:Unabomber
480:Biggspowd
372:recentism
253:GGreeneVa
241:Pete.Hurd
144:described
898:Mystalic
874:Pejman47
791:JayHenry
747:23skidoo
707:Dhartung
605:Dhartung
515:Dynaflow
436:Khorshid
423:Mikeblas
354:Ronnotel
335:Ronnotel
294:Ronnotel
228:Charlene
201:Dynaflow
183:Ronnotel
152:Ronnotel
111:View log
836:WP:NOTE
787:WP:NOTE
779:Comment
755:Delete.
703:Comment
585:Bnguyen
508:Godwin!
331:Comment
290:Comment
174:subject
162:Comment
140:subject
84:protect
79:history
859:(tock)
852:Delete
840:WP:BIO
811:Delete
799:Delete
783:WP:BIO
742:Delete
725:WP:BIO
721:Delete
678:irides
666:Delete
655:Banyan
635:Delete
618:delete
569:Delete
542:Delete
496:Edison
488:Delete
468:Shenme
456:Delete
444:Delete
431:Delete
419:Delete
368:Delete
317:Delete
308:WP:BIO
261:Delete
249:Delete
237:Delete
218:WP:BLP
214:Delete
193:Delete
179:WP:BIO
170:WP:BIO
166:delete
136:WP:BIO
88:delete
50:Ixfd64
816:BigDT
683:centi
546:Chris
510:=D --
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
856:Shii
838:and
785:and
768:talk
730:Yank
711:Talk
658:Tree
609:Talk
581:KEEP
530:Keep
306:Per
266:Sr13
132:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
48:. --
822:416
733:sox
674:-
403:g92
222:yet
109:– (
825:)
727:.
709:|
607:|
466:.
393:Ab
376:is
281:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
819:(
762:┘
759:└
398:e
278:C
275:|
272:T
270:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.