Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gibson (police officer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Gibson (police officer)

John Gibson (police officer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. Otto4711 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It may not be automatic but in this case the incident was notable enough for them to have funerals attended by members of congress and lying in honor in the Rotunda. This may well be because of circumstance but it does give them an element of notability, every other person to have done so has an article.--Sully 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect this article and Jacob Chestnut to Russell Eugene Weston, per longstanding precedent for crime victims (particularly multiple victims of one criminal). --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect- per Dhartung. —Dylan Lake 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See, actually, I think Chestnut might be independently notable because of being the first African American to lie in honor at the Capitol. That's why I didn't nominate his article. Otto4711 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for the same reason Otto4711 provided. SkierRMH 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because you can't give the cop killer an article and not one for the cop. It is ridiculous to think you could. --Daysleeper47 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, did you review the AfD I linked to, which clearly demonstrates that you can have an article on a cop killing without an article on the cop, before posting that? Otto4711 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but the primary article is titled "Russell Eugene Weston"; if you want to talk about the incident, leave all three or create one board article about the 1998 shooting event similar to the 1954 event. Why should the killer be more notable than the person he killed? --Daysleeper47 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just off the top of my head, Richard Speck is more notable than the women he killed, Ted Bundy is more notable than the women he killed, Jeffrey Dahmer is more notable than the men he killed, John Wayne Gacy is more notable than the men he killed, the Columbine shooters are more notable than the people they killed, and so on. I would support a rename of the Russell Eugene Weston article to one more descriptive of the incident. I also have no problem with merging this article into the Weston article and I don't have a huge problem with merging the Chestnut article either, although I do think he might be notable because of the first of his ethnicity lying in state aspect. Otto4711 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, Russell Weston didn't strangle 17 people and alternately have sex with and eat bits of them after, what's your point? Otto4711 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but possibly merge as already discussed. We have had issues before regarding notability of police officers killed in the line of duty, on the previous one the decision was keep because a new memorial foundation was created as a result of the death. In this case, there is less information, and I think that the best way to get this article kept is to merge it as proposed by Dhartung. SGGH 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Any officer killed in the Line of Duty is notable, because we are the peace keepers and we are supposed to be treated with respect and dignity, we keep you safe at night, we look out for you, an officer getting killed is one less officer to watch over you and your property. I hope this article will not be deleted.

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect. I have the utmost respect for officers killed in the line of duty, but as was previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The other victim in this shooting, Jacob Chestnut, is barely notable as the first African American to lie in honor in the Capitol. Still, I think the most appropriate action is to merge the victims' articles merged into Russell Eugene Weston with redirects for the victims' names. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE For many of these arguments that police officers killed in the line of duty are not worth Wikipedia articles, I present J. D. Tippit an officer who has an extensive (entirely unreferenced) article and was simply trying to have a chat with a guy who was not yet famous. --Daysleeper47 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Noting the existence of one article to support the existence of another is a meritless argument. Each article must meet notability guidelines on its own. Otto4711 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: I agree that any Police Officer killed in the line of duty is notable enough to have an article here. I disagree that the names should be listed with the victims of the incident as Police Officers are not "victims". The officers intentionally placed themselves in harms way to protect others. To list them as victims implies that they had no control over their fate, when in fact they chose to put themselves in harms way(thus making them notable). I also disagree that Jacob Chestnut is barely notable. being the "first" anyone to lie in honor at the capitol is notable, as a matter of fact if you did something earning you the right to lie in honor at the capitol, I'd say your notable enough to have an article here. EMT1871 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Man, I really wish people would stop acting like suggesting that this guy isn't notable enough for an article is a personal affront to them. Some of y'all need to take a step back and stop taking the nomination so personally. It has nothing to do with any of you personally. Otto4711 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I find suggesting that a police officer killed in the line of duty is not notable enough to have an article on here personnaly offensive. secondly I'm pretty sure this is a forum for expressing our opinions on the subject so if my opinion is to strong for you, oh well. I happen to feel pretty strongly about this one, as is noted by the fact that I am writting anything here at all, and it happens to be a very personal issue for many people here. I find it personally offensive that the topic is even up for debate. Considering some of the things that pass as "notable" on this website,such as soccer players and minor celebreties, an article about a police officer killed in the line of duty should not even be questioned. As a matter of fact I would think that anyone who is a member of "wikiproject: Law Enforcement" would find this debate offensive.EMT1871 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not say that I found the opinions expressed "offensive." I said that taking this personally is an error. Further, at no time did I suggest in any way that any editor was not free to express an opinion on this or any other nomination. If you're going to whip yourself up into a dudgeon, please try to do so over things that are actually said as opposed to things that you make up in your own head. Otto4711 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Situation Resolved I have taken care of the problem with this article and followed the direction of most of the editors in merging all of the articles. I created a decent article which can be viewed HERE. The concensus was heading that direction and instead of letting someone else lead the charge, I took care of it. The information for the articles for the two officers and the shooter have all been merged into one. Let me know if anyone has any other problems with this new article. --Daysleeper47 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


  • The only one making things up in their head is apparently you. First, "I did not say that I found the opinions expressed "offensive."...I never said you did say that, I said I found the suggestion that he is not notable enough offensive. Second, "Further, at no time did I suggest in any way that any editor was not free to express an opinion on this or any other nomination." My comment about this being a forum to express opinions was in response to your staement "I really wish people would stop acting like suggesting that this guy isn't notable enough for an article is a personal affront to them. " Your staement clearly shows a frustration at my opinion, the opinion of others, and expresses your feeling that we are too personally involved. I am free to express my opinion no matter if I take it as a "personal afront" or not and, i'll repeat, too bad if you dont like it. Thirdly, If you are going to suggest that a person killed while serving the community and protecting others is not notable enough to have an article here you should expect strong, heartfelt, opinions especially from the law enforcement community, firefighters etc.EMT1871 18:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really give a rat's ass in hell whether you express your opinion or not. Express away. It would, however, be noce if you based your opinion on Wikipedia policy rather than drama queen histrionics. Otto4711 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I thought this debate was based on wikipedia policy, and on if a topic was notable. I clearly stated my opinion, and portrayed it as nothing else than my opinion on the notability of the subject. As I said again too bad if you don't like my opinion I certainly didnt ask you to agree with me. I also stated my opinion intelligently and did not resort to the use of profanity and name calling nor personally disparage you. It would also have been nice if when you typed your previous response you had actually read what I wrote first since you feverishly responded to remarks I did not make. Responding to my remarks and opinions with profanity, name calling and personal attacks again will causes me to report you to the administrators.EMT1871 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the officer became notable and a public figure as a result of the incident. Congressmen attended the funeral, there may be facilities named after the individual, etc. Calwatch 10:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep I am glad to see the article was brought back, and must repeat my vote for a keep
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_John_Gibson_%28police_officer%29_fd06.html"