Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} speedy deleted by MZMcBride (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A1. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Embassy of The FDRE to Belgium-Brussels, Brussels
- – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Telephone numbers, addresses, and the current ambassador don't qualify as encyclopedic information. Corvus cornix 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Provisional Delete unless there's anything noteworthy about this as opposed to other embassies (which does apply to some embassies, eg 1, 2, 3). 212 countries with 211 embassies each makes a lot of embassies. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete under CSD A1 or A3, provides no encyclopedic information about the embassy. I'm tagging other similar entries by the same author as such. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: A7 would apply as well - while there may be something noteworthy, it's not established. If kept, however, all titles should be moved to read "Embassy of Ethiopia to (blah)" as nobody is going to know what FDRE is unless they do a Google search like I did. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If there a a lot of them (I haven't looked), it might be better to merge them to a list similar to Diplomatic missions of France. BTW, while you're doing your tagging, you might want to add Embassy of Germany in Windhoek — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Eh... that one at least gives some information. I agree it may meet CSD A7, but it's better than a phone book entry. There were a total of 13 Embassy of The FDRE's to tag, which has been completed. (linky to a list of all of them) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Although embassies are notable, this is nothing but coordinates for an embassy. Either rewrite the article, or delete and someone can later start a proper article on that one.JForget 23:17, 19 September 2007 (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.
- 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: as this article cites significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources in University of Florida Taser incident#References, the incident is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of this incident cited in University of Florida Taser incident#References would therefore suggest that this incident is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". Likewise, the involvement of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the events preceding the incident favors the conclusion that the incident does indeed have "historical notability". John254 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- ^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.
[edit] University of Florida Taser incident
- – (View AfD)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
WP:NOT#NEWS. The University of Florida police overreacted to a borderline heckler at a John Kerry speech. Footage was shown on television because it contained the memorable line "Don't tase me, bro!" and some print sources ran stories, but this has no lasting, encyclopedic interest. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This is a major PR story and useful case study. Also, the university has not taken final action, so the story is not finished.
- KEEP The phrase "Don't Tase Me Bro" has become something of a phenomenon, being echoed in stand-up routines, late night shows, and t-shirts. Just Google that expression, and you will find dozens of hits. It is part of the American lexicon now. In fact, that phrase should be the primary Wikipedia link and focus. To remove the entire article would deprive researchers of critical background for this expression. If it should one day fall out of disuse, it can THEN be deleted. But there is no reason to rush the article off Wikipedia's site. Another expression with its own entry is, "Yo, Blair."
-
- Removed link to Cafepress site. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. superlusertc 2007 September 23, 06:50 (UTC)
- KEEP I'm not an American citizen but if I were I would feel that this video depicts an important event in which fundamental principles of my democracy have been undermined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockers (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP Whether or not you feel this is something that should be deleted, there's really no reason. It is an event. It happened. It's now part of history. There isn't a limited amount of space that this article is going to take up. It doesn't matter whether you agree with what happened or not- YOU CAN'T DELETE HISTORY! And the fact that it has made such a huge impact and had so much media coverage is the reason it is a noteworthy article.
If you don't want to read it, don't go searching for it. It's as simple as that! ~Nini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.133.1 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"Keep" This is a piece of history that should not be wiped from the public's consciousness. Free speech is still free in most of Americans' minds although politicians and police have tried to take it away from us. Why weren't Meyer's questions answered? Even more, why was Meyer dragged off, tasered, and arrested for asking them? Kerry is a public official and the least of all rights we have to expect when dealing with one is that we be allowed to question authority, however unfashionable it may be these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.20.61 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. First, 'Footage was shown on television because it contained the memorable line "Don't tase me, bro!"' is not the reason I'm interested. In fact stating that this is the only reason there is interest is overreaching...and insulting. Obiter you do not speak for everyone...clearly! This is a current event of some interest; obviously. Stating that the line "Don't tase me, bro!" is the only reason there is interest and thereby qualifies the article for deletion is beyond ridiculous. Second, if the two videos are watched and listened to carefully one will quickly realize that everything stated in the article as of this point in time is accurate. In fact one can clearly hear an officer threat to tase Meyer before he begs not to be tased. Third, POV tags should NEVER be thrown without a reason being given. William (Bill) Bean 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I didn't add the POV tag to the article. Nor have I commented on the article's accuracy or who was "right" in this incident. You obviously have me confused with someone else. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Where did I say YOU added the tag Obiter? Please point that out. What I'm saying is that the reason you give for killing the article is not the reason I'm interested in it. Further, I'm stating that you don't speak for me. That should be pretty clear. Perhaps you should work on your reading for comprehension skills. Just a suggestion. William (Bill) Bean 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- As you threw up your comment out of order at the top of the list, immediately after the nomination statement, it was logical to infer that it was a direct response to it. I'm befuddled by your assertion that I don't speak for you. I've never claimed to, nor, AFAICR, have I ever interacted with you before. Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- You certainly make a lot of assumptions. "Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so." Obvious? Since it is highly unlikely that you read minds I can only assume that you are jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. Shocking! What is obvious to me is that the people who are having a problem with this article do not know how to follow proper procedure. Beyond my faux pas at putting my vote at the top of the list rather than the bottom I do know two things with total certainty. When an article is tagged for POV a reason must be given. When an article is nominated for deletion that nomination should appear where the entire community can find it. Otherwise both are meaningless; for obvious reason. FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE!!! William (Bill) Bean 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't feel this is a conversation I need to continue. I will simply point out (again) that the nomination was indeed posted to the afd log for September 19 by the TWINKLE script, which does this automatically. This is because is was nominated at 4:06 Greenwich Mean Time on that date. You couldn't find it because (as you said) that you looked in the log for September 18. Even though it was still the 18th where you lived, it was already the 19th in other parts of the world. Do you understand this now? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Stop with the "assumptions" and it will end. Do I get this now? No I'm too obtuse! Give me a slight break here. My ONLY concern is proper procedure. That is it! Now is there anything else you want to make "obvious" about me or are you through playing the passive aggressive game? William (Bill) Bean 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't feel this is a conversation I need to continue. I will simply point out (again) that the nomination was indeed posted to the afd log for September 19 by the TWINKLE script, which does this automatically. This is because is was nominated at 4:06 Greenwich Mean Time on that date. You couldn't find it because (as you said) that you looked in the log for September 18. Even though it was still the 18th where you lived, it was already the 19th in other parts of the world. Do you understand this now? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You certainly make a lot of assumptions. "Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so." Obvious? Since it is highly unlikely that you read minds I can only assume that you are jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. Shocking! What is obvious to me is that the people who are having a problem with this article do not know how to follow proper procedure. Beyond my faux pas at putting my vote at the top of the list rather than the bottom I do know two things with total certainty. When an article is tagged for POV a reason must be given. When an article is nominated for deletion that nomination should appear where the entire community can find it. Otherwise both are meaningless; for obvious reason. FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE!!! William (Bill) Bean 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- As you threw up your comment out of order at the top of the list, immediately after the nomination statement, it was logical to infer that it was a direct response to it. I'm befuddled by your assertion that I don't speak for you. I've never claimed to, nor, AFAICR, have I ever interacted with you before. Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Where did I say YOU added the tag Obiter? Please point that out. What I'm saying is that the reason you give for killing the article is not the reason I'm interested in it. Further, I'm stating that you don't speak for me. That should be pretty clear. Perhaps you should work on your reading for comprehension skills. Just a suggestion. William (Bill) Bean 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I didn't add the POV tag to the article. Nor have I commented on the article's accuracy or who was "right" in this incident. You obviously have me confused with someone else. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is the Kent State shootings of our era, a demonstration of excessive police state force against students massively reported in the media. It is also reminiscent of the Rodney King beatings. Ejeder 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I must say, comparing this to Kent State is in rather poor taste. Phil Sandifer 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will agree with Phil, above. Nobody was seriously hurt in this incident; nor did it involve a shooting of any sort. Tom Sullivan 1500, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is most certainly NOT in poor taste-- this is an example of police overpowering innocent university students. At heart, the principle is absolutely identical. This is a newsworthy event, it appeals to our national, cultural history, and it should be rightly chronicled as so in this encyclopedia. User:Unidyne7 19 September 2007.
- Wow, that's very offensive. A split-second tazing of upper-middle class prankster for insulting a United States Senator is not comparable to a merciless beating by police officers for no reason other than racism. Revolutionaryluddite 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Er, what? The Kent State victims were white students shot for protesting Vietnam, not victims of racist beatings. -- Dandelions 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was referring to the Rodney King beating. Revolutionaryluddite 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Er, what? The Kent State victims were white students shot for protesting Vietnam, not victims of racist beatings. -- Dandelions 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This story is meaningful from several angles: the passivity of Sen. John Kerry, former candidate for U.S. President, the forebodings of the beginning of a police state in America, the loss of free speech, historically one of America's most treasured traits, and with all the video evidence, this story is not going away. This event may stand the test of time, much like the murder of four students at Kent State University during the Vietnam War.--RuthStar 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Let the facts be presented as the vision of Wikipedia allows for. This event is clearly of interest beyond news and internet video --for anyone wishing to research contemporary issues in free speech in the college system of the U.S. 75.35.23.193 07:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Benzl
- Support/Delete I agree. Already, we've had 1 user (not saying any names), going through and removing hidden notes, and people referring to the prankster as "douchebag". A delete is what this article needs. [Tyler] (talk/contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Huge story, of relevance and interest to the American and world public, and which users will come here looking for. This story will not go away or be forgotten, and thus merits coverage in our encyclopedia. Badagnani 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - To Badagnani: But it doesn't belong here, as per WP:NOT#NEWS. [Tyler] (talk/contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, you're incorrect. This is a rare example of use of force with a Taser on a college campus, against a student asking a question at a forum, something that doesn't happen often and raises questions about the use of force (specifically with an electro-shock weapon) in the United States. As such, it is a very high-profile example of the Electroshock weapon controversy and not to treat it would leave an illogical lacuna. Badagnani 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This was #1 story earlier this evening on cnn.com, videos have ~500,000+ views on utube, hundreds of news stories and thousands of google hits and we still have an article for UCLA_Taser_incident which happened a year ago. Leafyplant 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting event, during the election campaign, may spark debate about policing in the USA. I'm sure much worse happens every day, but this case is particular because there was a violent reaction, a will to censor political critique. A peaceful political opposer was tortured by electrical shock until he accepted to wear handcuffs and be arrested for no reason. This is a rare happening in the USA, normally political censorship and intimidation is more discreet. It's an interesting turning point, especially as it was ordered by the democrats who often oppose the heavy handed way the Republicans have of dealing with problems. Democrats have often campaigned for the use of tasers instead of guns, and gun control in general, this gives an interesting insight on how they may be planning to use them. Jackaranga 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Right. It's in the news right now, but it's unlikely that it will have lasting historic importance. And now we apparently have the danger the article will turn into a coatrack after the rest of us have forgotten about it next week. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, this is a NN event. Just because lots of people watch it on YouTube does not make it notable. meshach 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment This is a great deal more than a "popularity of viral video" issue. First amendment rights, use of excessive force, student rights, and broadcast rights can all be seen in this article. Though there have not been many reported incidents of campus police use of excessive force, there have been other cases as well. I can see the article being incorporated into another article that deals with free speech, student rights, use of force etc., but for now it should stand. William (Bill) Bean 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is much more than a story about a prankster that loves attention. Using violence to put an end to what amounts to disorderly conduct is rather disturbing. It won't be long before this story is lost in the clutter of the ever changing news sites. At least here, we'll have a chance to view this story to its natural end. This is not always the case when relying on broadcast/cable news.Alecquaid 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. No encyclopedic longevity. - Crockspot 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS - time will tell this event to be without lasting significance. If something notable emerges and there is more significance, a new article can be written with the benefit of more hindsight. Dlabtot 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is classic WP:NOT#NEWS MarkBul 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Wow, AfD seems to have died down. I still stand by my delete. This will end becoming a hatrack soon [Tyler] (talk/contribs) 05:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a very notable story right now. Keeping and closing off edits for the time being until we see how impactful it really is may be the way to go User:Edgecution03 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Dlabtot's statement. This is not notable, and if it somehow turns into the root cause of a major policy change, then the article can be re-created. This kid was being pulled out for disruption the same way a heckler would be thrown out of a comedy act, and the police used vastly excessive force. This sort of thing happens so much these days that police have a reputation for it, especially in certain communities but even in general. There was no lasting injury. A couple of years ago, University of Central Florida students were tailgating, and there was an altercation in which an undercover UCF officer had his gun drawn. An Orlando cop was in the area, and due to a lack of communication between the two police forces, the Orlando uniformed cop shot and killed the undercover UCF cop who had drawn his gun. Guess what? This story does not have an article, nor even a mention anymore anywhere in Wikipedia (no, this is not supposed to be a police brutality example, just an example of notability). Mbarbier 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment So create one. William (Bill) Bean 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Umm, his/her point is not that an article should be created for that incident - but that an article rightly has not been created for that incident. Dlabtot 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- 'Comment' "Um" is not a proper way to start a sentence; just for future reference. Whether or not an article is created and kept is not up to you. It is a rightfully a community decision. Stating your opinion that "rightly" does not qualify for this article is all fine and good, but you do not speak for everyone. I'll be happy to remind you of this "sad" fact as often as necessary until you get it. I can see that it might be often. Finally, flagging an article NPOV without giving cause is in and of itself POV. I could also be considered vandalism. I strongly suggest you refrain from doing that in future. Your talk page indicates this is not the first or even second time you've done this. William (Bill) Bean 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - We've got an article for Rachel Corrie of all people; this guy's just as notable. Evan1975 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Rachel Corrie was killed; this person was Tasered. I think there's a difference. Bondegezou 13:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per Not#News -- best handled at Wikinews:Student_questioning_Senator_Kerry_is_tasered. – Zedla 06:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Badagnani. --Itub 08:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This was a news story, but it's not only a news story. There are enough references to it out there that, as Badagnani said, someone who missed all the coverage in 2007 may come upon a mention of it a year or a decade from now and want to know more. I don't agree with Tyler Warren that we should dump an article if people could look up the information elsewhere on the Web. We don't do original research, so most of Wikipedia's content is available elsewhere on the Web, and the rest is available in libraries. JamesMLane t c 09:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Very significant event, not just a news article. Someone could want to read this article months/years from now. Connör (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per JamesMLane. Darksun 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep why the hell would it be deleted? - mnuez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.148.23 (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is not Wikinews. --ElKevbo 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Just one day since the event's occurrence, and this article has already been nominated for deletion. Amazing. Why on earth such a rush to delete??? Evidently some editors are blessed with psychic powers, able to determine that a month or a year from now this story will have been forgotten, and is thus of no lasting value -- and accordingly, not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Or perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe they have access to that time-travel vehicle from Back to the Future. If so, I'd like to at least see some sort of physical evidence -- you know, a cancelled check or something like that. :)
Ahem. In all seriousness, this nomination is based on nothing more than a personal view that supposedly "minor" incidents of police abuse, where the victim wasn't maimed or killed -- aren't deserving of attention. That might be a valid argument -- if we were talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. But this sort of thing is not supposed to take place here in the United States. So unless it turns out that it was all staged -- nothing more than some sort of "performance art" on the part of both the student and the police -- it should be considered intrinsically worthy of documenting here on Wikipedia. But wait... that would be notable in itself, wouldn't it?! (And by the way, let's not forget that most online newspapers don't keep their articles online permanently.) Cgingold 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now. At the moment, this is a major event, with plenty of non-trivial secondary coverage by major news organizations. Revisit it in 6 months and, if by then it's no longer considered major then it can be merged with the applicable articles. I have to express concern that some of the arguments above (on both sides of the issue) cross the line of WP:NPOV and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23skidoo 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree wholly with this viewpoint. Any developments in the story will likely not be addressed by national news outlets, so at least for now, wikipedia can serve as a comprehensive account of the event. It can be reviewed again in six months, and then nominated then. --Asarkees 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First arbitrary section break
- Delete - this is a subject for a wikinews article not an enclycopediac one. People feelings about the importance of the event don't change it being simply a newsworthy event. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- how can you assume so quickly that it does not have long-lasting encyclopedic significance? Surely we need to wait a while and see how it plays out to determine that. In the meantime, this clearly satisfies the first criterion of WP:BIO -- subject of multiple, independent, reliable published reports. Dylan 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to List of cases of police brutality or some similar article due to recentism.... There is no telling that this event will have any actual historical impact. When it does beyond the initial media hype (as with all passing events), then perhaps a stand-alone article is warranted. It is way too early to determine the long-lived impact of this, and a case should be proven to keep it (other than to avoid deletion), not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Saying that "a case should be proven to keep it…not the other way around" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sure it does. Read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTE -- the long-term historical significance has not been established for this. I was published in a few newspaper articles, so maybe I'll be a big deal someday -- let's create an article on me, shall we? This is not evidenced to have far-reaching impact -- it's just the topic of the week as far as anyone can tell. Not even the I-35W Mississippi River bridge has its own article about all the national press that it received. It didn't stay in the national scope forever, and there's no evidence that this will, too. I don't want to blank mention of the incident from Wikipedia, but it needs to be more concise (less WikiNews) and placed in a broader article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep -- We don't know how this will play out and what kind of impact it may have, i believe this AfD is premature, it should be kept for the time being. DTGardner 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, we don't know. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- The University of Florida Taser incident story is just developing. It MUST be kept and eventually cleaned up. But any move to delete it is suspect. -- Greenpagan1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpagan1 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Must" why? "Suspect" how? Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- the massive media coverage more than establishes notability. As for the "performance art" argument, if it turns out that this was all staged, in my mind this does not diminish notability. I mean, if this was staged, it is probably one of the most successful (in terms of media exposure) acts of performance art ever; such an event -- a student successfully creating a scene that captures global media attention and provokes a "serious" national discussion regarding excessive force used by police and freedom of speech -- would perhaps be even more notable than a tasering incident standing alone. Interestingstuffadder 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I find most of the keep votes ludicrously offensive (Comparing this to Kent State?) for the moment this seems notable by any measure we use. Phil Sandifer 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No question there is censorship in the United States, and also there are those who would censor any mention of this censorship, as evidenced by the sprinkling of delete votes here. But, sorry, it's a little too late to "keep a lid" on this one now; even the BBC has reported on it. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why isn't there an entry for this nomination in the September 18, 2007 nomination for deletion list? Damned hard to discuss a nomination like this, in the broader community, if no one knows where to comment on it. William (Bill) Bean 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment SOFIXIT already. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The person who threw the tag should fix it or the tag should be removed. William (Bill) Bean 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's already listed at the log for 19 September. Just because it was September 18 in the United States when it was nominated does not mean it was September 18 everywhere else in the world. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment SOFIXIT already. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Weak deleteKeep Edited to add: per494671 news article about the event to be found at Google News search [43] and1.2 million5 million views of the top 7 YouTube videos of the tasering of the student.views of the YouTube video of the incident. It is offensive to compare a publicity seeking student (perhaps the only white guy in this millenium who would call a black cop "Bro") who gets tasered by the police in their attempts to remove him when he stays at the microphone too long during a question and answer session, with four students going about their business at a university being shot dead by the National Guard, or with a young lady being crushed by bulldozers when she puts her body on the line to prevent homes being demolished, or with a man stopped for speeding and beaten half to death because of his race. Go to a political event, a town council meeting, a stockholders meeting, or any other forum and seize the microphone, refuse to yield it after asking a question, and you will likely be removed, by force. The force may be taser, mace, or just arm twisting, but you will eventually be carried out.That said, this is one of those stories which might or might not prove to be encyclopedic. We have the philosphy "notability is permanent" but so far this is just a news story, and per WP:NOT#NEWS it may be deleted. Our newshungry 24/7 newschannels take any titillating video footage and run it around the clock for a couple of days, and every paper runs lurid stories to try and coax coins out of someone's pocket at the news stand. This is not "Currenteventspedia." For that, see Wikinews. People wanting to look up this news story 2 years from now can check the NY Times online files. The news editors are not trying to choose enyclopedic stories. "Notability is permanent" implies that "only things with enduring notability should have articles."See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS which distinguishes between the encyclopedic and the merely "newsworthy." We might have a philosophy of creating an article about a newsworthy (but posibly not encyclopically notable event) and then later deleting it if coverage rapidly drops off, which is what I prefer. In such a case, our initial impression of notability was mistaken. If it has no enduring effect on society (such as laws passed, defeat of a political candidate, regime change at a college, new rules for campus police using tasers) it can be deleted later. Or in accord with "permanent notability" we can wait and recreate the article if it proves to have enduring importance. Who can say at this point what its long term effect will be? At least the story is appropriately about the incident and not the non-notable person. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is big news, newspaper all over the world are reporting it. Vote to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.106.75 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep My guess is that there will be something else about this case that cements its notability, but my crystal ball isn't working very well. Saying that this should be covered at Wikinews is cute, but nobody actually reads Wikinews (I came here, looking for an article called Andrew Meyer; I haven't visited Wikinews in months—it is usually hours behind Wikipedia in getting news-like updates.) dcandeto 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Wikinews isn't working well, therefore Wikipedia should take up the slack? Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This incident might not be the Kent State of our time, but it is certainly newsworthy, particularly in the context of comparable incidents of police over-reaction in recent history (the UCLA taser incident, the Seattle WTO riots) that all are Wiki articles ApolloRPL 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This is one of few 'live-footage' police brutality incidents in current times. --Joffeloff 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. - This should not be deleted the day after it happened. Wait until the incident settles down, see what comes of it, and then reconsider it for deletion. The fact that it was even nominated for deletion this quickly is suspect. Digitiki 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Suspect" how? Don't pussy-foot. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep This article isn't about the student; it's about the incident, which is ongoing. It involved a US Senator, has been widely reported on by news outlets both online and offline, and has so far resulted in at least one investigation by the University of Florida. It's therefore pretty notable. The incident will surely be mentioned in Kerry's and the University of Florida's articles, so it's best just to link to its own page where the full incident can be explained.--Gloriamarie 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It devalues WP:NOT#NEWS if an article which is clearly more appropriate for Wikinews is kept, because there is no point in a policy which has so many loopholes that it never applies. The 'passivity of Sen. Kerry' can be dealt with in his biography; the behaviour of the campus authorities can be mentioned in the page about the University. Of the rest, the media coverage is broad but shallow and the incident has all the characteristics of a publicity stunt; it is likely to be forgotten in a few months. Sam Blacketer 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Major news item that will become of significant historical importance. See UCLA Taser incident. (Yes, I already know about the essay that says not to do this, but I disagree with it.) Philwelch 15:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very Weak Keep (for Now) It's frustrating to read the article now that it's mutated into a POV screed in support of Meyer. Still, the article is (or is supposed to be, at least) about the incident and its aftermath. The fact that an irate protester crashed a town hall meeting and was removed as normal isn't notable, but since this happened in a widely reported meeting with Senator Kerry it is notable to that extent. I don't know. The fact that other users keep saying ILIKEIT without actually defending the article is also frustrating. It's news, but it's a developing story and I'm leaning twoard seeing what happens. Revolutionaryluddite 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to provide some perspective The New York Times ran a single, one-paragraph story on this incident, credited to the Associated Press. It did, however, note that the video has been replayed widely on television and the Internet. In other words, no one in the grown-up world actually cares much about this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- And now the story is completely off the front pages of almost all major news organization if it ever was anyway. 128.227.81.252 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Watergate also took a long time to develop. That doesn't mean that this is the next Watergate, but that the true relevance of the story may not be known for some time. My vote can be found elsewhere. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 02:34 (UTC)
- And now the story is completely off the front pages of almost all major news organization if it ever was anyway. 128.227.81.252 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a news blotter. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like a notable news event, since it happen during a polictal event. CRocka05 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with CRocka05Samaster1991 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This had ought to be kept; it has become a major news event in both public and online news, while most of the mass media ignores it. Darkahn 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and add a brief summary to List of cases of police brutality ("This list compiles incidents of police brutality that have garnered significant media and/or historical attention"). -- Gabi S. 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- There has been no investigative or legal finding of brutality. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - excellent suggestion. Dlabtot 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Most of the keep rationales that I am seeing here are based on the fact that this is a "major news event". This does not address the fact that, by policy, Wikipedia is not a news blotter. I am also seeing rationales that this story seems to support other collateral theories, which amounts to original research, which is also against policy. I have also seen at least one contributor who's first edit was to this AfD, which is suspicious in and of itself. I would hope that the closing admin will give these rationales their appropriate weight (ie., no weight at all), when determining consensus. This is beginning to look like the Zeitgeist the Movie AfD. - Crockspot 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: As of now. This may turn into a big deal depending on what happens with the officers and the investigation. But as of now, delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. - Rjd0060 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Multiple reliable sources.
- Keep: Widespread media coverage, multiple sources, significant topic. Xizer 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Very notable news event that is an example of a broader trend of Campus Law Enforcement violence, see UCLA_Taser_incident, the event has caused widespread campus protest and will quite likely involve legal response. Further it happened during a question and answer with a U.S. Senator, the setting itself adds weight. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: If you think that the tasering of students is less important for an encyclopaedia than MediaWiki or any of the other random naval-gazing pages that you have, then you lot are all even more circular than I thought. If you are going to insist on notability then half the stuff has to go, e.g. every episode of a sci-fi show has a page for heavens sake!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.234.82 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep : Andrew Meyer may be a goofball but the incident showed unacceptable police brutality. Tasering someone for being a nuisance is a sinister development. It is a record of what the police do to those who dissent. The phrase : "Don't tase me, bro" has entered the lexicon of American dissenters. The article must be kept. Tovojolo 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- There has been no finding of police brutality or civil rights violated. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Too recent an event for an article. Wait a month or two so we can gain some perspective on the event and its impact and then recreate. At the moment, it is clearly NEWS. Blueboar 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and stop wasting time with trying to delete things that happen to pertain to recent events - nothing in WP:NOT#NEWS supports deleting an article like this. Nothing there compels us to delete anything about an important event. It is merely a reminder that we don't need an article on every single homicide or traffic accident.
- This story reaches beyond that. It touches on issues related to free speech vs. creating a public nuisance. Police brutality vs. maintaining order. It also touches upon long-standing sentiment (misplaced in my view) by a minority of the US electorate the Republicans are somehow "disenfranchising" people's vote.
- Just because it is a recent event does not mean it is a news story. Some people actually thought we should delete Virginia Tech massacre because of WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not as big a waste of time as that effort was, but the same principle applies. Recent events can and should have a perfectly viable encyclopedia article.
- This article complies with all Wikipedia policies and it is a far more useful reference (to give just one example) than any number of articles on minor British nobility who are someone "notable" because they were born into a bizarre caste system. Johntex\talk 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: the event has already become highly notable. The fact that it concerns police harrassment of a university student in a university hall in the USA when he was asking about issues such as the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities and the Movement to impeach George W. Bush to a former candidate for president of the USA makes it likely to remain notable in the long term. Whether or not it is correct that the 2004 US pres election was rigged, and whether or not it is morally/legally/politically justified to impeach Bush are POVs, but it is NPOV to say that these are questions concerning one of the most powerful people on this planet. The fact that someone asking questions which are implicitly critical of this extremely powerful person got jumped on by police in the supposedly academic setting of a university lecture room makes it unlikely that the notability could drop. Boud 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an important issue on the state of our police force, and on the right to freedom of speech. As a college student and as the editor of a newspaper that is covering this event, this page has helped me find links, sources, and facts. This is about a student being treated with unnecessary force while exercising his right to freedom of speech and his right to peaceably assemble on Constitution Day, of all things. The fact that some are tired of the quote, "Don't tase me, Bro!" does not make this issue unimportant.--Manda babylon 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm a bit disturbed to hear that you use Wikipedia to research your journalistic work, and it is patently POV to assume that he was tazed for exercising his "freedom of speech". He was tazed because he was running aroung the hall being disruptive, pushing cops, and resisting his detainment. Tasers and pepper spray are used to subdue combative detainees, rather than risk hurting him or the officers by forcing him to submit through muscle power or a knightstick. Better to be tased or sprayed than end up in traction. I saw the video, he was running around like a fool, and he is lucky that he didn't get seriously injured. All of these arguments run counter to what this project is all about. It isn't a soapbox for radical students to "stick it to the man", it's an encyclopedia. - Crockspot 18:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Crockspot, your characterization that he was disruptive, running around like a fool, etc. is your personal opinion. I saw the same videos and I think he did none of those things. You want to delete the article because of your own POV.
-
-
-
- As for Manda babylon using Wikipedia for his journalistic work, there's nothing wrong with that. He used it to find links, sources, and facts which he could verify himself. Nbauman 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well there you go. Two opposing POVs do not necessarily equal NPOV. The guy obviously took a lot more steps around the hall than most people are allowed to take when the police want to detain them. I think they were very generous with him. As for using Wikipedia to find reliable sources, true, it is good for that. I guess I was also taking into account the POV that this journalist was expressing. If the view expressed above is repeated in his/her news reporting, then I would have a difficult time giving that reporting much credibility, as it would be obviously biased. - Crockspot 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that this article is important and suitable for WP whether or not Meyer's demeanor was appropriate, and whether or not the police were right to arrest him or taser him. Those are the issues that people are debating. You're trying to remove the debate from WP because you believe in one side. Nbauman 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well there you go. Two opposing POVs do not necessarily equal NPOV. The guy obviously took a lot more steps around the hall than most people are allowed to take when the police want to detain them. I think they were very generous with him. As for using Wikipedia to find reliable sources, true, it is good for that. I guess I was also taking into account the POV that this journalist was expressing. If the view expressed above is repeated in his/her news reporting, then I would have a difficult time giving that reporting much credibility, as it would be obviously biased. - Crockspot 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- As for Manda babylon using Wikipedia for his journalistic work, there's nothing wrong with that. He used it to find links, sources, and facts which he could verify himself. Nbauman 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
(comment?) I live in Bristol in the UK and it had an article in today's paper here. 86.137.127.139 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Appears right now to have significant interest. We can always delete it later if it proves to have no staying power. One of the great things about not being paper is that we can change our mind. Right now, people will be accessing Wikipedia to learn about this, and I imagine they will in future. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep due to considerable news coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Kerry's proximity and (non)reaction make it very notable, though rare and notable regardless. Respected commenters, e.g. [44] see it as a free speech issue, indicative of a decline of protection of constitutional rights.John Z 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- So it's probably Bush's fault that Kerry didn't jump in and start punching cops, no? I think I have to walk away from this discussion. My eyes are starting to glaze over. - Crockspot 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- His non-reaction makes it notable? Aside from not making sense, this is factually inaccurate. Kerry tried to address some of Meyer's questions after he was cut off, even though Meyer wasn't listening and was drowning him out. 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Kerry could easily have intervened; he had the microphone. He could have said, to the campus cops, "Hey! Wait a minute! This is America, and the First Amendment says people can ask questions of Senators. Let the man go." Instead, he said nothing about brutality toward a student who asked him embarrassing questions, in a scene reminiscent of Red China or the old Soviet Union, and which lost him a certain amount of support from those whoi supported him in his run for the Presidency. Then he said he had no idea the student was arrested or tasered, making him the only person in the hall whose powers of observation were so impaired. Edison 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is an important incident, for those of us who believe in free speech. For those of us who don't believe in free speech, it may not be important, but they shouldn't censor Wikipedia for the rest of us. The very fact that people are so divided about it shows that it is a watershed conflict about censorship, and people will cite it forever. Cases like this go through the courts for years, and people will want to look up the background facts about it during that time. In addition, I found that the Wikipedia article had a very well-selected collection of links when a Google search gave me thousands of mostly-repetitive links, so I want to keep it simply because it's so useful. Nbauman 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. As an example of how good this article is, it has a link to a Fox News story with the only comment I could find by two lawyers, discussing the reasons why he could or could not prevail on the legal issues. Nbauman 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This will probably be kept or done so by default. Obviously, it's hard to give a proper argument toward deletion of this article at this point, since it is a major news item, but I do not feel that it will have sufficient long-lasting notability. It would help if we could wait a week or so and then determine if an article should be made, but at this point, I would ditch it. Dannycali 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If it's on so many news sites as everyone claims, why is it "censorship" not to include it in Wikipedia? We're not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor as Edison put it, "Currenteventspedia". shoy 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The reason why it's censorship not to include it in Wikipedia is that most of the people who argue for its deletion are arguing that it's not important because they don't approve of his demeanor or of what he was trying to do. Those who give greater importance to the First Amendment believe the abuse is important and the article is important. Those who give greater importance to being polite, to not annoying the majority of people and to following authority and the police believe the abuse is not important and the article is not important. People are arguing for its deletion based on their political beliefs. Nbauman 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. No, they're not. They're arguing for its deletion because they don't believe the incident has demonstrated any long-lasting notability, as almost all of them have stated. They are having to deal with people who dislike that stance defaming them by ignoring their stated rationales claiming that their votes are politically motivated, or by making dark (and rather ridiculous) comments about how "putting the article up for deletion so quickly is itself a suspicious act." Binabik80 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- A little background. I happen to think that deputizing the campus rent-a-cops is a canonically bad idea. I protested against it when the administration did this at the University of Michigan back in the early '90s when I was a student there. That is hardly the issue. This video is simply this week's version of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- But it's not like if we don't have an article on it, it's going to fall off the face of the earth. If it becomes an important and oft-cited incident, we report that. But if it doesn't, we shouldn't. shoy 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It seems notable enough. For example I read about it on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, in Sweden. Otherwise the case could be added to the List of cases of police brutality and a redirect created? -Duribald 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I just got through reading the article on the UCLA taser incident last year, that was is still of interest, and this one will be to as a reference to similar topics in the future. --Michael Lynn 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's a very notable event that inolves many moving parts: A former candidate for U.S. President, a university format, police brutality, free speech, the use of recording devices and mainstream websites such as YouTube in quickly spreading news, and so forth. I agree that this is a pinnacle event for Generation Y. Sure it's not the same thing as Kent State, but it is a controversial issue that will be discussed for years to come. I'm sure now whenever people talk about Taser guns, this will be brought up. Whenever people talk about university police, this will be brought up. Whenever people talk about political speeches at colleges, this will be brought up. It has changed a lot of things and the way people look at them. Abog 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- "A pinnacle event for Generation Y"? How could you possibly know this given that it happened two days ago? Because you speculate that people may talk about this in the future does not mean that this is an important event. When it becomes one, then it is the time for an article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It already has become an important event. Just like any other event becomes significant immediately after it happens. I've never heard of something being not important and then all of a sudden becoming important 5 years down the road. Abog 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone even remember the UCLA tasing anymore? 128.227.126.157 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Plenty of important events happen without notice because their full implications are not known until later. This is a matter for historians and reliable sources to decide, not you, but you've already decided it's "a pinnacle event" based upon lord knows what. It's not important, it's just a passing news item. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Response to this Rhetorical Question I Certainly do, it gets mentioned plenty of times throughout these vote comments, and you yourself also remember it, so I think the answer can be determined to be a "yes." I consider the UCLA incident to be slightly less significant than this incident. There's a Wikipedia article on it too, without a vfd, and I think it should also be kept. --76.114.242.31 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete or Transwiki (I'm not volunteering). Passing news item. Many users who have said "Keep" are proposing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for advocacy, which it is not. If the article is nominated a month or a year from now, they can be expected to make the same arguments plus "notability isn't temporary!" even though we have no argument for notability except "It was on the news," and "It's notable to me." Gazpacho 23:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep at the moment , 1275 news stories in Google Top News. The extreme interest now is a good indication of continuing interest--due not primarily to the police action alone, but the relationship with the presidential campaigns. DGG (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Second arbitrary section break
- Keep. I suspect that attention to this story will grow rather than fade. MisfitToys 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At the moment, this is a major news story. Whether or not other people agree that it is an important news item is irrelevant. Chris Quackenbush 22:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Being (maybe) a major news story is a reason to have it at Wikinews, not here. Gazpacho 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now per 23skidoo. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for the time being. --Camptown 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Meets notability, and far more than some other articles. LuciferMorgan 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep - Front page news - Once notable, always notable. — Omegatron 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to WikiNews and (merge to various articles) with a link to it via U of F. That looks to be a significant event due the heavy coverage (in North America especially) but it is better suited for WikiNews and the University's article and also maybe some bits for Mr Kerry's article.--JForget 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. It's front-page/headline news in numerous national news organizations. Quite a number of people have come here looking for information and details already. This sounds like exactly the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should document. -Krenath 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG DELETE. This article certainly has no encyclopedic longevity; Andrew Meyer is someone who just wanted attention and he got it. Good for him. Don't give him a wikipedia article (or two!). It's undeserving. Timneu22 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please note: Transwiki to wikinews is not an option because the licensing models are not compatible. Johntex\talk 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep for now this is no everyday news story. this could turn out to be out generation's Kent state shooting. depending on how this unfolds this artivle will likley have to be re-created anyways.--66.188.133.158 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Naively idealistic suggestion for a truce. The article is extremely popular and prominent right now, no fundamental principles seem to be at stake and both sides agree that the present time is the hardest one to determine the scale, implications, impact and all that razz. As such, what reason is there not to close this discussion as temporarily suspended and come back in a month or so? --Kizor 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - a sensible suggestion. Dlabtot 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- We don't normally do issues like this in AFD, and we don't close AFDs as "temporalily suspended". Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I'm kinda new here. Dlabtot 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree we don't "suspend" AFD discussion, but there is plenty of precedent for declaring no consensus, or calling to reconsider this again after a period of time. 23skidoo 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen it done before. It was weird, but worked quite well. --Kizor 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- When has it been done before? Anyways, I agree that a "postpone due to no consensus at this time" decision is a good idea. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Many articles get a second or third AFD. If an event like this gets a Keep or No consensus now, and it does not turn out to be a "macaca moment" for Kerry, like happened to George Allen in the 2006 Senate campaign, it could later be deleted or given brief mention in an article about him. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always take a second look at the encyclopedic nature of a news story. The stated permancy of notability does not mean our judgements of it are not subject to further review. We are not required to have a crystal ball, and instantly determine the long term effects of every newsworthy occurrence. Edison 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- When has it been done before? Anyways, I agree that a "postpone due to no consensus at this time" decision is a good idea. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- We don't normally do issues like this in AFD, and we don't close AFDs as "temporalily suspended". Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete It's news not encyclopedic content. --345Kai 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete with option for recreation at a later date Dlabtot had it right. This may be a major story later, but right now, it's not much. Give it a week to a month and see if people keep talking about it. If they do, it would probably make sense to add it back in. It is an issue that involves issues of free speech and police brutality, so it should be notable if it has any legs. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 02:10 (UTC)
- Comment Why was a section break created? Revolutionaryluddite 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- They're a common sight in long discussions. From what I can tell, they're created arbitrarily to make the discussion more organized and easier to read and possibly prevent the occasional edit conflict. --Kizor 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Really really really strong keep, because telling you how serious I am gives my opinion more weight - Pardon the sarcasm, but I really thought people would have cut that nonsense out by now. Article cites sources, covers a national news event, and is yet another case in what is becoming a controversial issue, the police use of teasers to compel behavior instead of simply to defend themselves.--stufff 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. PaddyM 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Important event, not just a news. --Neo-Jay 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic. 220.120.157.2 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any indication why this is considered as an "important event" like many people in this debate is saying. Sure it has alot of news coverage, but that what wikinews was created for, not wikipedia. WP:NOT is a policy. Also it can't be transwikied to wikinews as they have different licences. Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: You are correct that it's a policy, however as this AFD shows there are many cases where articles fall into a grey area. I've seen far less-notable news situations become subject of articles that have been kept. I opined to keep earlier on the basis that it is currently a major issue and for us to revisit it in a few months to determine if this stays the case. But I do feel comparing it to things like Kent State where people got killed is rather in poor state and rather offensive -- and it really hurts the argument for keeping this article. That's most likely a contributing factor for why WP:SNOWBALL hasn't been activated because (again as I said in my earlier comments) there's far too much WP:NPOV-violating and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDON'TLIKEIT discussion going on. 23skidoo 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just because no one died doesn't mean that it's not significant. There have been a few riots (or even massacres) where no one died. They're still significant. No, the reason why the Kent State comparison is bad is because Kent State shocked a nation. This has yet to do that. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 04:48 (UTC)
- A massacre where no one died? That doesn't seem to agree with the dictionary definition of massacre. --Itub 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just because no one died doesn't mean that it's not significant. There have been a few riots (or even massacres) where no one died. They're still significant. No, the reason why the Kent State comparison is bad is because Kent State shocked a nation. This has yet to do that. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 04:48 (UTC)
- Comment: You are correct that it's a policy, however as this AFD shows there are many cases where articles fall into a grey area. I've seen far less-notable news situations become subject of articles that have been kept. I opined to keep earlier on the basis that it is currently a major issue and for us to revisit it in a few months to determine if this stays the case. But I do feel comparing it to things like Kent State where people got killed is rather in poor state and rather offensive -- and it really hurts the argument for keeping this article. That's most likely a contributing factor for why WP:SNOWBALL hasn't been activated because (again as I said in my earlier comments) there's far too much WP:NPOV-violating and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDON'TLIKEIT discussion going on. 23skidoo 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Regardless of whether you think the event was an incident of police brutality or not, every cable news station has been talking about it all day and something like 1/3 of the most viewed videos on youtube right now are about this incident. I think it's pretty safe to say that it's news whether you like it or not.Ottawastudent 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a critical event that highlights the tension in our culture between the elite and regular people, violence versus free speech, the controversy surrounding tasering, habeus corpus repealment, arrest without miranda rights or a charge (inciting a riot? are you kidding me?). And for the record, yeah maybe the guy is a jerk, but that doesn't mean he didn't hit on a major news category that millions of people have now been discussing for 2 days. 24.14.125.124 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Excellent points. Badagnani 04:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. What does this have to do with habeas corpus? Miranda is reaching a bit, too. Do you have any evidence that he was not mirandized? superlusertc 2007 September 20, 05:04 (UTC)
- Keep. I came here to get an objective overview of the situation, which I believe the article comes pretty close to doing. This guy was all over the news... I can think of many people who are lesser known that have articles here. Rawr 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is perfectly acceptable for its historical relevance, significance, and importance. The desire to have this article deleted is biased by political motives or to conceal the incident or something about it. If Wikipedia does delete it, then they'd might as well delete many other articles, such as the one about Rosa Parks and her bus seat incident. --76.114.242.31 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Look, this isn't Rosa Parks, it's not Kent State, it's not My Lai, it's not anything like that. I think the guy had his rights trampled, but these grandiose comparisons are really offensive and over the top. And they really don't help the discussion. In fact, the only thing that they really do is make the name droppers look foolish. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 07:43 (UTC)
-
- Look this doesn't have to be Rosa Parks or Kent State or My Lai. Every article here does not have to be as important as the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. We are not paper. We can have an article on a minor river in India and a cartoon show. Let's not look for every article on Wikipedia to have some major cultural impact 10 years from now. We are out to be comprehensive, and that certainly includes an event like this. Johntex\talk 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Please do not try to imply that I made a claim that isn't true, I don't appreciate that kind of behavior, especially where it doesn't belong. It needs to be understood how to interpret this statement correctly. This is the interpretation (I'll spell it out for you):
-
- If either the Rosa Parks bus seat incident, Rosa Parks the individual, or the injustice she was standing up against (yes, you got me, it was a pun) are more significant than this student incident, then the point is "where do we draw the line on how to determine what articles to delete?" But if this incident is equal or greater in significance, well then that obviously would trivialize the argument. --76.114.242.31 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment #2. Just because someone comes along and points to something red and says "green" doesn't make it so. You can argue that my argument is foolish, but that won't make it so. I make light of these types of things because your goofy mind tricks don't work, except on the weak minded. I'm also skilled at putting adversaries on the defensive: I myself find it offensive to claim that this incident is somehow insignificant to another without justification or a plausible argument. --76.114.242.31 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Slippery slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy. No one here has suggested deleting Rosa Parks' entry. Rosa Parks was an influential part of a US Civil Rights Movement. Mr. Meyer was not. Mr. Meyer thus far has been little more than a footnote in history. Rosa Parks is known to quite a few people in the US. Her name is listed in textbooks. Same with John Brown or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. If you ran a poll today, how many people would be able to recognize Andrew Meyer? It's offensive to place him alongside those whose lives and events have shaped the consciousness of a nation. I should add that if Mr. Meyer does become a great civil rights leader (or even a very minor one), I think that this article should be kept. But there's no indication that this thing will stay on anyone's radar for more than a week.superlusertc 2007 September 21, 04:21 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, but that's better. --76.114.242.31 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I don't know about those on the delete side of the aisle, but this is the most strikingly clear case of unlawful seizure combined with police brutality I've ever seen. Certainly there have been worse cases of police abuse, but this case took place practically in real-time and in living color, therefore it became a very popular news story. Someone mentioned Kent State. If this war drags on or escalates to the level of Vietnam, we might indeed face another Kent State. If so, we will look upon this event as a mere prelude, but until then I strongly suggest we meditate on this for a while, and read the Constitution.--Cjackb 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is going to be kept but come back in two months and AFD it again, and I guarantee it'll be deleted. 193.95.165.190 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It was notable two days ago, it is notable right now, and it will surely be notable years into the future. This is a very significant event which has already garnered much attention and will surely be of historical value. Also a very fine article in my opinion, especially considering the short time period in which it was written. — xDanielx T/C 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete An interesting story, but it's too early to claim that it's notable. My personal guess is that it will be a minor story, half remembered years hence. Of course, my personal guess is no better than anyone else's, but we don't have to guess. We can simply assume non-notable until there is clear, unequivocal evidence otherwise. Phiwum 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is the most controversial story so far in the Presidential campaign season (and is already being cited in the news as Kerry's downfall), and the details are being reported piecemeal in various media outlets. For example, a Google search for (andrew meyer "constitution day" "swear me in as president") yields no hits. As a professional librarian, I urge the editors to keep this intriguing story as it continues to develop.141.165.80.186 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Er, Kerry is not running for president, his downfall was his accidental "end up in Iraq" line, and I don't think I've heard anyone even imply that this was Kerry's fault; he was trying to answer the guy's question and keep everyone calm. -VJ 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A stupid incident, but one which has been reported on extensively, if only for sensationalistic reasons. Don't delete me, bro! 209.146.241.93 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of "keep" opinions are blatant examples of WP:SOAP. Randydeluxe 14:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Even if true, this has no bearing on the article itself. Johntex\talk 14:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article itself is about an event that took place. The DISCUSSION page is where opinions are being declared. If the neutrality of the article is the fault, then say that, but don't claim the article itself to be a soapbox when it's about an event that has actually happened.
- Weak Keep. A lot of the 'keep' votes here seem to be crystal-ballery; we shouldn't be making a judgement based on how significant this event will become in future, but based on how notable it is now. And therefore, I say keep it: it received plenty of coverage from news organisations, and has provoked some further discussion on issues of free speech and the use of police powers on campus. A month from now, this event may have proved insignificant and been entirely forgotten; if so, we can delete it then, but for the time being, it does no harm to keep it. Terraxos 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Ok, ok, I'm not going to come here and say that we should keep this because this is a life changing event that will ring in history. I'm voting keep because it is a documented incident that has been relivant in the current media. It's been discussed enough on national news media to make it significant enough, I would say...
- Keep as a significant event with significant coverage, per Cjackb. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete there's no way this article could be NPOV, and Wikipedia is not a news service. That's what Wikinews is for. To put into perspective, Northern Rock's financial crisis, which was the second-most important news story in every newspaper in Britain last week, does not have an article, only a subsection (I say "secondmost" given the amount of exposure given to the Madeline McCann disappearance). If this were to happen in not-America, I doubt it would have an article (systemic bias). Will (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but was the bank president tasered after shouting a dated colloquiallism? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't exactly see what you're getting at. By the way, Northern Rock's financial crisis has about 16,000 results on Google News, and with it being on the headlines of at least Sky News and BBC News for the few days (Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon) it was ongoing, even overtaking Madeline McCann, it just shows how notable that articleless incident is than the "And finally..." stories such as this incident or "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!", which do. Will (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was an attempt at humor that did not translate well over the Internet. Here's another comparison: the article is now far more extensive than the coverage Wikipedia gives to the student protests at the 1968 Democratic convention, which does not even have its own article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't exactly see what you're getting at. By the way, Northern Rock's financial crisis has about 16,000 results on Google News, and with it being on the headlines of at least Sky News and BBC News for the few days (Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon) it was ongoing, even overtaking Madeline McCann, it just shows how notable that articleless incident is than the "And finally..." stories such as this incident or "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!", which do. Will (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but was the bank president tasered after shouting a dated colloquiallism? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Sceptre's reasoning. This is a non-article. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "non-article" means what, exactly? It certainly looks like an article. It is written in prose. It has categories. It has reliable references. What makes it a "non-article"? Johntex\talk 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit of newspaper fluff, not an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "non-article" means what, exactly? It certainly looks like an article. It is written in prose. It has categories. It has reliable references. What makes it a "non-article"? Johntex\talk 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Certianly not worthy of an encyclopedia article. WP:NOT#NEWS. Those saying that this is a freedom of speech related event are clearly expressing their point of view. The man resisted to his arrestation and that is why he was tased. Tomj 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep some people are saying we shouldn't use crystal ballery to justify keeping the article...so why should it be used to justify deleting? it's important right now, it's still being reported on, it's still generating discussion, so why is wiki trying so speedily to delete it? it's a noteworthy case of police brutality/authority abuse. maybe not as shocking as rodney king or kent state, but it has been extensively covered and could have ramifications in the future on how tasers are applied and how police act at public functions. "don't tase me, bro" even has the chance to become a catchphrase in popular lexicon. i'm not saying it'll be relevant in 3 weeks, but just as i can't say it will be relevant, you can't say it WON'T be. but as for RIGHT NOW, people are still talking. that alone to me says KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.61.28 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It only happened a few days ago, and the news aren't saying "abuse". It seems like because the video landed on youtube, it seems like abuse. Blahblahme 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- I don't care about anybody else's definition of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the first place I came to learn about this event, I found it by searching "kerry taser," and learned what I wanted to know. The fact that the article is useful and relevant even to that degree is justification enough for its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.200.117 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:USEFUL Blahblahme 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:USEFUL is just an essay. It carries no weight. Posting a pretty blue link is not contributing to the discussion. Johntex\talk 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's a major part of AFD discussion, and many admins follow it. Blahblahme 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- If any admins are following an essay for guidance in closing AfDs then they need to be de-sysopped immediately. They are supposed to follow AfD closure policy. If an article does not violate policy, then it should be kept. As the closure policy says "when in doubt, don't delete". Johntex\talk 00:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a major part of AFD discussion, and many admins follow it. Blahblahme 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Tomj. This man does not deserve the attention. At least, remove his name and photo. Greswik 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I thought this incident was pretty significant. I know the guy may have been inciting it deliberately, but the fact of the matter remains that at least four officers were on top of him and he posed no threat; the taser was not warranted. The notoriety the incident gained, aided by the full video and youtube, warrants an article. -VJ 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - But precisly because it was incited, it will never be a good example on anything else than a PR-seeking guy knew how to make a policeperson tase him. This is exactly why a comparison with, say, Rodney King is so lame. Greswik 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Andrew Meyer, a modern day Herostratus -- Dlabtot 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- All Delete noms are based off speculation that this will not become a notable event. You guys say Wikipedia is not a source of current events yet the Main Page has the Current Events section or whatever it is properly called, which often links to current events. Also being said is that if this does become a notable event that it can be re-written. Why throw away work just because right now it is not as notable. I think will all the news coverage, online videos and such that it is already becoming notable. Lets keep this article around for longer. There is no telling what can happen at this point so leave the article be and the future will hold the fate of the article. FuzionZero 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To AfD Starter - This story wasn't shown on television because of the "don't taze me bro" line. This event is obviously much bigger than that. Either you are unaware of all the facts of this event or you have chosen a poor scapegoat to try and delete an important article regarding the first ammendment and police brutality. I can't believe your reason for deleting this was because it was just some event shown on television because of some line that was said. FuzionZero 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - actually not all the Delete comments are based on speculation that it will not be a notable event. Some of the comments (such as mine) are based purely on the fact that current events should not have articles on wikipedia... that is what our sister project wikinews is for (the current events section of the main page is taken from wikinews by the way, not from Wikipedia articles). I fully expect that this event will be encyclopedic... it just isn't encyclopedic YET. We need to wait and see what the longer term ramifications and impact of the event will be. At the moment we are still dealing with it 'in the present'. That's why I suggest delete and recreate later is a more accurate option. Blueboar 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- This may indeed have some long-term notability as one of the more effective pieces of political theater in quite a while. The current story, which doesn't recognize this, is an embarrassment. Many people have still not gotten the joke. This is an excellent place where WP:TIND should be applied. ObiterDicta ( pleadings •
- Comment - actually not all the Delete comments are based on speculation that it will not be a notable event. Some of the comments (such as mine) are based purely on the fact that current events should not have articles on wikipedia... that is what our sister project wikinews is for (the current events section of the main page is taken from wikinews by the way, not from Wikipedia articles). I fully expect that this event will be encyclopedic... it just isn't encyclopedic YET. We need to wait and see what the longer term ramifications and impact of the event will be. At the moment we are still dealing with it 'in the present'. That's why I suggest delete and recreate later is a more accurate option. Blueboar 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
errata • appeals ) 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think WP:TIND can be applied on different levels. No deadline means we should not get ahead of the sources, but it also means we don't have to get the whole story on the first try either. Unlike a newspaper, we can continuously improve an article over time, with no deadline. I would agree that the article needs improvement (like most WP articles) but I disagree that deleting it now and recreating it later is the way to get that improvement. Dhaluza 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep - I think that this incident was blown way out of proportion, and without the massive media coverage would never have been noteworth. However, I think that massive media attention makes it noteworthy. Nosferatublue 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – This made news and appears to be a notable civil rights abuse. —Ben FrantzDale 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Third arbitrary section break
- Don't delete me, bro! - The article is well-sourced. Mfko 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The extent and character of the coverage outwiegh accusations of recentism. The incident has also become something of an internet phenomenon. From a Wired reporter: "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" Jolts the Web. Quote: "Just two days after it was yelled out in a University of Florida lecture hall, "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" has become the newest cultural touchstone of our pop-cultural lexicon." Ichormosquito 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- So maybe the article should be moved to Don't tase me bro and focus more on the meme? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the meme is notable enough on its own. Ichormosquito 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- So maybe the article should be moved to Don't tase me bro and focus more on the meme? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep - It's becoming news all over Europe and is being cited as an alleged example of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech and/or fear instilled by terrorist threats and events like the Virginia Tech massacre in the US. May be irrelevant in the future, but I think it should be kept for now. I actually came here to check for more information Universalcosmos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The wide news coverage that this incident has brought (both in mainstream media and the blogosphere), and the viral video (http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wired/topheadlines/~3/158792950/dont-tase-me-br.html) cannot be ignored. It is notable enough in many ways (and remember that wikipedia even has a Leeroy Jenkins article). At least it should be added to the University of Florida article, although I don't think that's appropriate. --Miguel1626 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I presume that the function of Wikipedia is to inform and to educate its users guided by the idea that knowledge is an inherent good. This incident has appeared on national and international media. Regardless of that fact, the tasering of an individual when asking a question of an elected official is an extremely important event in a democracy. Regardless, of that fact, whether or not the police used unreasonable force on a citizen is an extremely important issue for all members of a society governed by the rule of law. It is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia to handicap public discourse by deleting an entry capable of elucidating the details of such an event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.197 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable. He'll have his 15 minutes of fame and people who see this article 1 year from now will have a skewed perspective from the article, i.e. they might come away thinking that anyone still cares about it or he matters at all. General Epitaph 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Merge the most significant of the material into relevant articles, such as List of cases of police brutality, John Kerry, and University of Florida. It's moderately notable, but it's too early to be creating whole articles on this. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This belongs on Wikinews...and it belongs on Wikipedia too. The two are not mutually exclusive as some have implied here. As for WP:NOT#NEWS, this is becoming one of the most widely misused policy shortcuts on AfD. The issue there is context, and the encyclopedic contexts of civil liberties vs. civil behavior have been laid out many ways above. Notability is a complete non-issue now, there never really was any reasonable doubt. For the people arguing wait and see on both sides, Notability is permanent--if the incident was a hoax, and the cops were really actors, and the taser was a prop, even that would make it more notable, not less. Notability is about whether something has been noticed by RS, not whether it meets some editor's personal opinion of whether it should be noticed. I think many of the comments, both keep and delete are not about what's best for WP readers, but are supporting the actions of the police or the taser victim. Amd I think many of the delete votes do not represent deletionism, as much as denialism. It happened; people know about it; so we can talk about it. Dhaluza 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Don't delete me Bro! per Mfko. This is not even a close call. Two published sources. Fin. Thesmothete 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because this can be referred back to by people who didn't know what happened and can't find any information on it because all of the news articles have expired since, despite this being an actual event.
--60.241.159.88 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fourth arbitrary section break
- Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS was designed for news stories like this. When I first heard this story I was shocked and I thought this was a major breach of civil rights. Then I watched it on Youtube and realized this was just an obnoxious, whining student who clearly intended to get some kind of big reaction (I think "attention-whore" is the official term). Interestingly, many of the delete !votes are from editors who regularly take part in afd discussions, so they may be editors who are more familiar with deletion policy and Wikipedia policy in general than many of the keep !voters, most of whom appear to be saying "keep" based on variations of WP:ILIKEIT and "it's big news!". It is insignificant news, a student does something stupid and they show the tape on TV for a few hours. So what? This is an encyclopedia, look it up on Google news if you want to read about this. Crazysuit 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Attention whores can be encyclopedic, as well. What about Rollen Stewart? His article survived an AfD.superlusertc 2007 September 21, 02:47 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#NEWS is not designed to exclude significant news events--if it was, then the "design" does not represent Consensus, as demonstrated by the comments in this AfD. WP:NOR cautions us to avoid drawing un-sourced conclusions, and your delete argument is largely based on one. If RS say he was an "attention-whore" then it would be relevant to the article, and could be added with cites. But it is not a reason to delete, especially if it is just an editor's opinion, not an accepted fact. Dhaluza 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to meet the standards of multiple reliable sources... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Keep - This article is highly notable it has been covered multiple times on major news outlets. This deletion attempt reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Gudeldar 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Article refers to a relatively high profile news event. Article may need to be disaggregated due to noteworthiness of two (2) aspects contained in the article; "Andrew Meyer" and the catchphrase "Don't Tase Me, Bro!". (DTMB may become as popular in 2007 as "Where's the beef?" was in 1984. I myself am currently in the market for a DTMB t-shirt, but I digress.)72.82.198.34 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is just a news item with a lot of coverage right now. It will be all blown over in a month — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This is a notable event receiving a heap of news coverage. Yes, Timotab, notable events tend to get most of their news coverage in the days immediately after the event, but that is in no way a suitable argument for deletion. Besides, you are making an unmerited prediction that this will all "blow over," whatever that means. CelestialDog 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, but read my comment for some arguments about the article. We should see how this pans out. Notability is probably asserted, although to what degree exactly we probably don't know. The WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not reasons to keep or delete an article. Yes, it is verifiable, but we need to look at its notability with regard to other issues - e.g. Freedom of speech, Homeland security, Internet memes etc. and then in a few months time, if the public decide it was a flash-in-the-pan incident, then it can be revisited at WP:AfD again. For now though, it's a weak keep. --Solumeiras talk 13:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (again) I already voted for deletion above, but I have a new argument. The International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran made much more headlines in December 2006. Now, just a few months later, it looks like a not-notable event that should have been barely mentioned in the Holocaust denial article. I'm sure that in a few months the Taser event will be flushed down in history, and will not be worth more than a brief summary in other articles about police brutality or the elections. -- Gabi S. 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think I specifically disagree with this line of argument. One of Wikipedia's advantages over other encyclopedae is its virtually unlimited size. So, unlike other encyclopedae, it does not need to limit its usefulness to that of the general reader. I certainly hope that we keep the CRGVH article indefinitely, so that someone who, for example, is researching, say, Iran's evolving approach to the Holocaust, or comparing attitudes across Muslim countries, or the breath of international conferences. The thing about knowledge is that you don't always know in advance what you're going to use. What is the harm in keeping the article? The .01 cents of disk space? In this case, there is already a meme being promulgated "Don't taze me, bro" It seems quite likely that, years from now, someone, somewhere will utter that phrase and someone else will want to look it up to find out what it means. Why would we intentionally delete the answer? Thesmothete 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- We're getting somewhat offtopic, so any follow-up discussions can be done on my talk page, or by e-mail. Regarding your position, I didn't mean to not include these topics, but to keep them as part of other articles, rather than independent articles. The meme also can be mentioned in several articles with phrases that arose on political situations. In all these cases, proper redirect links will guide the interested user to the article that includes the relevant incident. Independent articles should have notability above a certain threshold which, in my opinion, these events don't meet. -- Gabi S. 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- How can a single editor state their wish for deletion twice? That seems very strange, and not allowed. Badagnani 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- If this were a vote, you'd have a point. We wouldn't want people to vote twice. But it's not a vote. It's a discussion. Dlabtot 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- How can a single editor state their wish for deletion twice? That seems very strange, and not allowed. Badagnani 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust was nominated for deletion. The result was speedy keep. I agree with this decision. I think it's fair to have an article about a crackpot conference convened by a world leader. (also, I know a Gabi from elsewhere. Are you the same Gabi?) superlusertc 2007 September 21, 21:18 (UTC)
- We're getting somewhat offtopic, so any follow-up discussions can be done on my talk page, or by e-mail. Regarding your position, I didn't mean to not include these topics, but to keep them as part of other articles, rather than independent articles. The meme also can be mentioned in several articles with phrases that arose on political situations. In all these cases, proper redirect links will guide the interested user to the article that includes the relevant incident. Independent articles should have notability above a certain threshold which, in my opinion, these events don't meet. -- Gabi S. 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think I specifically disagree with this line of argument. One of Wikipedia's advantages over other encyclopedae is its virtually unlimited size. So, unlike other encyclopedae, it does not need to limit its usefulness to that of the general reader. I certainly hope that we keep the CRGVH article indefinitely, so that someone who, for example, is researching, say, Iran's evolving approach to the Holocaust, or comparing attitudes across Muslim countries, or the breath of international conferences. The thing about knowledge is that you don't always know in advance what you're going to use. What is the harm in keeping the article? The .01 cents of disk space? In this case, there is already a meme being promulgated "Don't taze me, bro" It seems quite likely that, years from now, someone, somewhere will utter that phrase and someone else will want to look it up to find out what it means. Why would we intentionally delete the answer? Thesmothete 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - NOT#NEWS doesn't say no current events, it just reminds us that we don't do all current events. This article may be notable now, and yeah, if five months or five years down the line it isn't, we'll delete it then - although I'd remind everyone that notability doesn't expire as popularity or memory fades. The potential for future non-notability, however, is not the same thing as being non-notable now. So keep. --Cheeser1 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all the good reasons already mentioned. AugustinMa 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is just another pointless occurrence, no more notable than those car chases they televise on cops, or a crack head who tried to run from the coppers and got beaten down for it. There's no article on Billy-Bob Crackpipe so why does this tosser who merely was tazed for resisting arrest deserve his own? Remember kids, your rights are yours to exercise until they impinge upon someone else's rights, anyone who disagrees is wrong. In either case, the article is written like dogshit. Comradeash 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per all keep facts mentioned above --Mothmolevna (©
® ) 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per 23skidoo, but definitely revisit this issue in a few months for reevaluation. Burntsauce 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This incident is in fact historically important because of the questions the guy asked, because of Kerry's reaction to everything (tells us something about Kerry) and because of student reactions. Then there's also the police. Sure police brutality happens a lot but seriously. Also the "attention" at the top of this page should be deleted. Why does it matter if someone created an account to voice their opinion over this? If it's just a particular incident that gets someone involved with wikipedia entries then... what's wrong with that? How does that make their opinion less valid? It all seems like vote-rigging to me.75.72.206.28 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Vote-rigging? Unless you're accusing the "Keep" side of rigging, it seems pretty unlikely that any vote rigging is going on. Why would the deleters rig the "delete" side to lose? superlusertc 2007 September 21, 21:18 (UTC)
- This event is notable and worthy of an entry because (1) The police removed him not because he asked a question, but because the particular questions he asked challenged Kerry. This is a violation of his First Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of speech. (2) He was tasered while he was face-down on the ground and under the officers' control, which constitutes police brutality. (3) Due to these aspects of the incident, it has received a large amount of coverage in the news media. So the nature of the questions Meyer asked is just part of one of the aspects that make this event worthy of an entry. The nature of his questions was the reason the officers removed him, which again, is a violation of the First Amendment. CelestialDog 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- No-one ever seems to be aware of the bit about not having any protected rights on private property. He was told to leave, the police were merely enforcing that his from thereon in trespass came to a close, who gives a shit about what part of the rant he was up to, he was asked to leave by someone on the venues authority, he didn't, he was removed. Comradeash 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, really? I thought this incident occurred at a university, not on the private property of a recluse with "keep out!" and "no trespassing!" signs posted all around the perimeter. As a tuition-paying student can he demand a refund + interest for failure to provide that to which he is entitled? Even the general public usually has access to many of these types of university resources. Mr. Kerry, who was apparently interested in hearing his questions, answering them, and even wanting him to remain to hear his responses is speaking as a public servant, so I don't think you can argue that he wanted him to leave. Police are also supposed to be public servants. What's this "authorities" business? Do we live in a dictatorship? Is Orwell's Big Brother in control? I'm going to bring up Rosa Parks, again. Was she someone who was just trying to cause trouble & be disorderly, or was she doing the right thing by standing up against oppression & dictatorship? Is this student just a disruptive troublemaker, or is he doing something necessary & important? In either case, these are significant incidences about significant issues, and they should never be flushed down the "memory hole." --76.114.242.31 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, more or less (public universities do have the right to kick you off their property--for example, if you haven't paid for a course). But this is not the place to discuss whether you think he was right. This is the place to discuss whether you think it's encyclopedic. superlusertc 2007 September 23, 04:24 (UTC)
- Oh, really? I thought this incident occurred at a university, not on the private property of a recluse with "keep out!" and "no trespassing!" signs posted all around the perimeter. As a tuition-paying student can he demand a refund + interest for failure to provide that to which he is entitled? Even the general public usually has access to many of these types of university resources. Mr. Kerry, who was apparently interested in hearing his questions, answering them, and even wanting him to remain to hear his responses is speaking as a public servant, so I don't think you can argue that he wanted him to leave. Police are also supposed to be public servants. What's this "authorities" business? Do we live in a dictatorship? Is Orwell's Big Brother in control? I'm going to bring up Rosa Parks, again. Was she someone who was just trying to cause trouble & be disorderly, or was she doing the right thing by standing up against oppression & dictatorship? Is this student just a disruptive troublemaker, or is he doing something necessary & important? In either case, these are significant incidences about significant issues, and they should never be flushed down the "memory hole." --76.114.242.31 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- No-one ever seems to be aware of the bit about not having any protected rights on private property. He was told to leave, the police were merely enforcing that his from thereon in trespass came to a close, who gives a shit about what part of the rant he was up to, he was asked to leave by someone on the venues authority, he didn't, he was removed. Comradeash 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep for time being, revisit in 6 months. StaticElectric 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete transwiki to wikinews. Whether or not this current event is notable will be answered in time, but for now, it is news. Testtest03 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And, keep forever, you can't just keep something until it's notability goes away. If its notable now, it always will be. Anyway, if someone like Chris Crocker gets to keep his article, barely being notable, something like this should. It's sparked controversy on our first amendment and has been on the FRONT PAGE article of several news websites. Xihix 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Bordering from Keep and Keep for now If the incident turns out to be 15 minute fame, then we can delete it later. No rush. If the incident turns out to be a notable example of police brutality, then we can keep this forever. May violates WP:NOT#NEWS at first instance, but I think we should give this a chance. Chris! my talk 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- VERY STRONG KEEP This is an event in history and information is plentiful as is sources to cite. It has every potential that a wikipedia article needs. Not only that, but there is nothing in WP:NOT. That says that this can't be here.As long as it doesn't violate WP:NPOV, it can stay --Amaraiel 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable already, enough sourcing; if he decides to press a suit or anything, it will just get more still coverage. I can't see a reason to delete right now. If nothing else comes of it, and the press drops it completely in a week, renominate it again in a few months. • Lawrence Cohen 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep incident meets Wikipedia notability standards having received non-trivial coverage by notable third party sources.--Jersey Devil 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Side Note -- Other stuff exists is not a valid argument
(This a sidebar from the central discussion)
-
- "If its notable now, it always will be." Contemporary notability is not the same as wikipedia notability. "Anyway, if someone like Chris Crocker gets to keep his article" This is not considered a valid argument on wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F. Testtest03 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - again, that is just an essay. It is opinion of some Wikipedians that drawing analogies to other articles is not a valid argument. That is merely their opinion, and it is not policy. In order to delete this article, those who want to dispose of it must show an actual policy that it violates. Johntex\talk 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a breaking news source. The existence of other articles does not automatically warrant the existence of this one. Closing admin should note that a lot of the keep arguments in the first couple of sections are particularly weak or aren't reasons to keep an article (not saying all the keep arguments are like this, though). --Coredesat 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, This really does contradict with NN, a mere summary in an article about police brutality or something would do. Ryan4314 04:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems to me that they're a lot of WP:CRYSTAL ballery going on, "This is going to be a landmark case for years to come" etc. versus "Everyone's going to forget this in a week" etc. shoy 04:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- EMPHATIC KEEP: I was shocked at Kerry's inaction, and the inaction of the student observers, and now you the public want to delete the occurence!?? It's not just about police brutality, it's about unabridged free speech. People please!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - It's not about free speech. It's about him being an idiot and resisting officers. Timneu22 13:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Damn bloody straight, its just so unfortunate that so many people aren't aware of the limitations of their precious constitution. Comradeash 14:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whether it is about free speech or police brutality, it would be notable either way. The fact that there is a heated debate over which one it is makes it all the more notable. Johntex\talk 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Jontex... An AfD is never about free speech or some guy being an idiot. An AfD is about whether an article's topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Some feel it is, some feel it isn't... I happen to feel it isn't notable enough YET (Then again, I take a long term, wait and see attitude on all articles about recent events, I don't think you can assess encyclopedic notability until at least a few weeks after an event has happened). Blueboar 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- This illustrates the weakness of the Delete arguments. Some people (including WP:RSs, think this is a violation of the First Amendment. Other people think that it isn't, or that a violation of the First Amendment isn't important. Whether or not you want to keep it depends on how important the First Amendment is. Nobody who believes that the First Amendment was violated has called for deletion. The objections are based on personal opinion. I think this debate should be resolved in favor of a keep. You can include POVs in the entry arguing for and against that viewpoint in the article. Nbauman 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, could you tell me how my link to WP:NOT#NEWS and my spiel about systemic bias automatically makes me believe the First Amendment wasn't violated? (Besides, it's totally irrelevant to a deletion discussion) Will (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- This illustrates the weakness of the Delete arguments. Some people (including WP:RSs, think this is a violation of the First Amendment. Other people think that it isn't, or that a violation of the First Amendment isn't important. Whether or not you want to keep it depends on how important the First Amendment is. Nobody who believes that the First Amendment was violated has called for deletion. The objections are based on personal opinion. I think this debate should be resolved in favor of a keep. You can include POVs in the entry arguing for and against that viewpoint in the article. Nbauman 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Jontex... An AfD is never about free speech or some guy being an idiot. An AfD is about whether an article's topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Some feel it is, some feel it isn't... I happen to feel it isn't notable enough YET (Then again, I take a long term, wait and see attitude on all articles about recent events, I don't think you can assess encyclopedic notability until at least a few weeks after an event has happened). Blueboar 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whether it is about free speech or police brutality, it would be notable either way. The fact that there is a heated debate over which one it is makes it all the more notable. Johntex\talk 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this nomination is here under the rationale but this has no lasting, encyclopedic interest. We're not entertaining opinions here. I don't care, I don't care what any of your people's opinions are, the secondary sources establish notability and that has been well established. If I understand ANYTHING about Wikipedia's deletion policies, this is a clearcut keep case and I recommend closing this discussion in a timely manner. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. How can this be up for deletion but a similar article(The UCLA Taser Incident) is not? It is also notable because it has resparked the debate on stun guns/tasers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.163.94 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Actual Event; gained national prominence in the media; involved once and possibly future Presidential Candidate (who did nothing by the way - between Kerry and Bush (who kept reading the goat story as the buildings fell), well, that's what you get with a stinky two party system ruled by rich spineless losers, but that's off topic); shows the increasing crack-down on the right to free speech, one of the U.S.'s great claims to freedom; shows overuse of force by Police; UCLA taser incident is still a Wiki page; we don't know how this will turn out so we cannot make claims about irrelevance or future status; major YouTube hit therefore entered into Pop culture (especially with all the song remixes); shows the increasing slide into fascism in the U.S.; well referenced and cited, etc. Saudade7 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Minor, hilarious testament to effect on internet culture. Ichormosquito 01:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Obvious Keep The very fact that so many are even commenting on this page is evidence that it is pretty dang important. Internet culture at its finest. Police overreaction. Political depth. This story has it all. How could we possibly even think of deleting it? It's a fine picture of American internet culture today. Wrad 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Side Note -- Please close
(This a sidebar from the central discussion)
- Comment - This looks like a pretty clear keep. Can we close it and get it out of the article? — Omegatron 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This section is not "part of the article" as such. Also, I don't see a clear consensus on keep- more like a simple majority for keep. Please see the discussion above (in the 'Second arbitrary section break' part) about a proposal to postpone the deletion discussion. Revolutionaryluddite 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I would support an early closure to keep. The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. As Omegatron says, lets close this and get the tag off the article. Johntex\talk 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. That's your opinion; please don't disimiss other users beliefs out of hand. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. 'No consensus' does not mean the same thing as 'keep'; please review the Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Revolutionaryluddite 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I stand by both my statements. Every post here (with the exception of a few comments) contains someones opinions. My opinion is The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. You are welcome to form your own opinion.
- I did not say "'No consensus' means the same thing as 'keep'". Please review what I wrote, it was, "At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep." (emphasis added) A keep results in the article being kept. So does a no consensus. Therefore, they are effectively the same.
- Therefore, some bold admin should invoke WP:SNOW and close this in favor of keeping the article. Johntex\talk 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- It frustrating to see user after user say 'Keep: I like it', but the majority is clearly on one side and there's no point in continuing the AfD. Revolutionaryluddite 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a majority-take-all vote. --ElKevbo 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- It frustrating to see user after user say 'Keep: I like it', but the majority is clearly on one side and there's no point in continuing the AfD. Revolutionaryluddite 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. That's your opinion; please don't disimiss other users beliefs out of hand. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. 'No consensus' does not mean the same thing as 'keep'; please review the Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Revolutionaryluddite 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Do we usually close after just one day? Badagnani 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the nomination is disruptive or meets WP:SNOW, sure. Is it just me, or is every article about a current event nominated? For good reason, or just to put a big tag on the page that they know all kinds of newcomers to Wikipedia are visiting? This obviously goes above and beyond trivial news, and the (de facto) voters are in agreement. — Omegatron 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think that a few of the NOTNEWS AfDs are basically people voting for whether they agree with the thing. You can see that here. Many people seem to be forgetting that AfDs are Template:notaforum, and they're suggesting that because they personally don't like what the guy did, he shouldn't get the benefit of a Wikipedia article. There are valid reasons for wanting to see articles like this deleted; I'm not sure if it's appropriate to paint all the delete voters with the same "attention whore" brush that they have been using.
- I still say that we don't have enough perspective to write a proper article about it, and we don't know if it will have any staying power (I'd like to see it have some staying power, and I think it's more likely than me getting a pony). But I don't have any strong opinions on this. If it's kept, I'll be just as happy as if it gets deleted. superlusertc 2007 September 21, 03:41 (UTC)
- I agree that WP:NOT#NEWS is frequently being used to cloak WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments and give them an air of authority. That policy is based on context, and ironically is used out of context far too often. Dhaluza 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just Keep it ... there comes a point when if enough people are willing to argue about an event it becomes encyclopedic for that reason whether or not it was originally worth having. That point has been reached, and the point has been made quite well that it is a notable event anyway. Bugsy 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see anything in WP:NOTABLE that indicates that something becomes encyclopedic "if enough people are willing to argue about" it.
- And BTW, putting your comments in boldface does not make them in any way more persuasive Dlabtot 19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this is clearly a notable event in U.S. History and is obviously encyclopedic. --Sprhodes 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is the kind of crystal ballery I'm talking about. The Revolutionary War was a notable event in U.S. History. This was an arrest and happened a week ago. shoy 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:NOT#NEWS is being grossly misapplied here, and I think it is high time we close this discussion as the community seems split over this issue for the time being. RFerreira 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would be a gross error to close this AFD prematurely as a "snowball." There is clear disagreement here, and no "snowball" result at all. A premature closure would only likely result in deletion review and unnecessary Wikidrama. Let the process play out and let the AFD continue for the usual 5 days. Edison 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it certainly does need to be kept. Police brutality is becoming a bigger and bigger issue in this country, and with many other possibly taser-misuse cases now coming to light, it is obvious that the more people that know about this, the more likely some kind of change will be made. You can't suppress history, that is a message that should be getting across right now.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.139.26 (talk)
- Delete - my opinions have been echoed by others above- way too many are doing the crustall ball thing and saying "this'll be a landmark police brutality case", yet there has been no such evidence to that conclusion as of yet. David Fuchs (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's just as much of a crystall-ball move to say it won't be notable as to say it will be. Wrad 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Was the deletion of the comment above David Fuchs' intentional? If so, I apologize superlusertc 2007 September 23, 21:36 (UTC)
- Keep A viable article with information about a nationally recognised news story, this is an article with much information on a pertinent current affair. Geoking66talk 23:07, 23 September 2007 (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.
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article:
- – (View AfD)
Even after the first afd, nothing has been inserted into the article that demonstrates any notability. A google search of the title returns 83 unique pages, many of them being personal blogs. Trulyequal 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 01:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Should have been deleted last time around, I don't know how it was decided there was "no consensus." Article doesn't assert notability of book at all. Should be eligible for speedy per A7. faithless (speak) 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless something other than adspam content is added. Alba 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Also not the best thing to have an article on when we don't have much information to back up why we have an article on it. It's written fairly neutrally, but the subject itself is a bit inflammatory. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: Here is the first AfD. I don't know why it's not shown above. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #17,746 in Books" and zero Google news archive hits. CitiCat ♫ 05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Em. I guess 17,000 on the Amazon rank isn’t so bad as all that, especially for a book five years old. With millions of book titles in the inventory, this means it’s in the top 1% of Amazon sales. I bet there’re more than a few authors who’d kill to be listed so high. And that Wikipedia has many book articles titles places considerable lower. And of course you’re not going to find much mention of a five year old book on google news. It didn't even exist then.
- In fact I just clicked on four random books from the wiki category: Cate!gory:2002 books – and not one of them was ranked anywhere near this book:
- High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games # 602.322
- Hobo (book) # 920,501
- High and Mighty (book) # 343,383
- Harmful to Minors #205,863
- Heres a book by Herman Melville Mardi, and a Voyage Thither – coming in at a whooping #3,469,482. - and not a mention on google news. I hope we won’t have to start to delete Herman Melville books on that account. Rune X2 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- 1% is low. Since the million titles not in the top percentile sale only a few copies or not at all, it doesn't mean it sells sucessfully. See the long tail for further explanation of this economic concept. Anyway encyclopedic notabiltiy is not established by top sales lists, I doubt that Analytica Prioraby Alexander of Aphrodisias is much of a best seller.--Victor falk 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um, the Melville book may just sneak by under Wikipedia:Notability (books) #5 - "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Any thoughts on which criteria this book passes, other than WP:OTHERSTUFF which you keep using? CitiCat ♫ 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong keep why would you want to delete a book article , unless you were trying to censor its content. The book is quite notable and has been feartured on numerous radio shows--CltFn 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Assume good faith unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, please. If you can find reliable sources regarding such media coverage, then by all means produce them. Tarc 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable book. ffm 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a complete failure of WP:N. If CltFn or others can provide sources for the "numerous radio shows" assertion, then we can see if it is notable. Tarc 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep : If you want to start the like of an electronic wiki book burning, lets start with thousands of wiki articles on less controversial books, to avoid any accusations of being political or ideological motivated. For instance the four book I listed above Rune X2 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just because other non-notable books have articles is no reason that this one shouldn't be deleted. I can't speak for the others, but (after a cursory glance) I'd probably argue Delete for the books you mentioned as well. Why don't you nominate them? faithless (speak) 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know that argument, and I've heard it many times before. But I don't buy it, because it's always the controversial articles which are being deleted, leading to an obvious suspicion that the driving force is something entirely different than having non-notable articles removed.
- Comment Just because other non-notable books have articles is no reason that this one shouldn't be deleted. I can't speak for the others, but (after a cursory glance) I'd probably argue Delete for the books you mentioned as well. Why don't you nominate them? faithless (speak) 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Anyway I don't nominate the other articles, from the same reasons I don't agree this article should be deleted, because I myself have an interest in obscure Victorian literature which leads me to find interesting articles on books which most people would find completely non-noteable and which I'm sure lists considerable lower on Amazon than this book. Which actually might not even be at sale there and sure as hell have never been mentioned on google news. Another person might easily have other obscure interests and find this book interesting, even when you or the other editors in here find it non-noteable. You throw around this "notable" like it could scientifically measured, but "noteability" depends entirely on your own interests and is anything but unbiased.
- Besides I hate dead ends on Wikipedia. And since I can't imagine you'd want the article on the author deleted, then a mention on books by the author on that page would have to be de-linked. Thirdly I think the book is noteable enough, on account of the author being notable - the same way I think "Mardi, and a Voyage Thither" by Herman Melville is notableable because of its author. Rune X2 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You may have a point, that it's only the controversial nature of this book that has led to it being nominated here. I don't know, you'd have to ask the nominator. However, that's irrelevant. WP has guidelines and policies that must be adhered to. Regardless if this article is interesting or useful, the subject does not pass Wikipedia's (not mine or the other editor's) guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't. Furthermore, I fail to see how the author of the book is notable. faithless (speak) 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You fail to see how a widely discussed and published author is notable, but a cursory look on your page revels that you yourself have created articles ranging from one on an obscure American soccer player, over some rock band with apparently no known cds to its name to an even more obscure fan of a little known American football team. But if that is your opinion then the honest thing would be to start with trying to get the article on the author removed - and then his books afterwards. Instead of chipping away at the corners and making the original author entry less usefull. And shouldn't we leave it at noting that it doesn't pass your guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't, while it does pass other editors notion of what is noteable. Rune X2 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whether you agree with it or not, coaches of national soccer teams are notable, as are people and bands who have received news coverage from reliable and independent sources. If You feel strongly about it, nominate the articles I've written for deletion. Meanwhile, try to stay on topic and not come up with petty attacks because someone disagrees with you. Widely discussed and published? You mean aside from his own books and website? Oh, and the Jets are anything but a "little known American football team." That's laughable. Stop taking this so personally. faithless (speak) 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- And actually, my two worst articles were the first two I created, before I really understood Wikipedia, on two actresses who really aren't very notable. If you'd like, feel free to nominate those, I'm sure you'd win. ;) faithless (speak) 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- No I wouldn't "win" - perhaps we'd both lose. Because, who knows, there may very well be people out there who are interested in little known actresses or everything to do with fans of American football teams or whatever - and Wikipedia loses nothing by also providing information for these people. Personally I think all to do with American football completely un-noteable, but wouldn't presume to list them all for deletion on account of my own interests.
- Comment You fail to see how a widely discussed and published author is notable, but a cursory look on your page revels that you yourself have created articles ranging from one on an obscure American soccer player, over some rock band with apparently no known cds to its name to an even more obscure fan of a little known American football team. But if that is your opinion then the honest thing would be to start with trying to get the article on the author removed - and then his books afterwards. Instead of chipping away at the corners and making the original author entry less usefull. And shouldn't we leave it at noting that it doesn't pass your guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't, while it does pass other editors notion of what is noteable. Rune X2 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You may have a point, that it's only the controversial nature of this book that has led to it being nominated here. I don't know, you'd have to ask the nominator. However, that's irrelevant. WP has guidelines and policies that must be adhered to. Regardless if this article is interesting or useful, the subject does not pass Wikipedia's (not mine or the other editor's) guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't. Furthermore, I fail to see how the author of the book is notable. faithless (speak) 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Anyhow, no harm done. I guess I'll just post the article on some of the other language wikis. Already I find the German wiki often to be of a better quality than the English and often have article not found in English. And since I'm a fan of plurality of languages this is fine by me. Rune X2 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well, so much for WP:BEANS :-) --Bfigura (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Delete. Non-notable book. CRocka05 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No notability asserted. Probably because there don't seem to be any reliable independent sources disscussing the book. Fails WP:V Bfigura (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not discussed by reliable sources WP:RS, doesn't to have made much ripples in the world; you find only a couple of forums and two or three mentiong it through googling, all of them utterly unnoticeable--Victor falk 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in the total absence of reviews or other RSs for notability. DGG (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as there is no media coverage of this book and the author isn't even notable. A seach on lexis-nexis reveals no hits on this book, ditto with google news. I tagged it for notability months ago and no-one showed notability. Jayran 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- let's be careful not to pick books for deletion because we don't like the content. I don't see any delete notices on High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games, as pointed out above, and this book is over 20x more popular on Amazon. Almost 100 reviews on Amazon are enough for me to give a cautious keep. -Quasipalm 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, does someone want to AfD High Score for me? CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS If you think that there is a problem with another article, put it up for deletion. Look at this book on its own notability. Jayran 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- And see WP:UGH for the reason why this and not the other works are listed for deleting. And as long as we're WP:SPAMMING then a couple of editors here might want to check out: WP:JNN, WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOEFFORT. Rune X2 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- This article has been tagged with a notability tag for months and no one has ever suggested why it is notable. It is telling that this book has received no hits on Lexis Nexis or Google News. There appears to be no reviews by a rs. The fact that this book hasn't even received attention in its own cottage industry shows that it has no notability. Of the books listed, several should be deleted but the Melville book is notable on the basis of its author and among that list, the book, Harmful to Minors won a book award and attracted media attention. I don't know about the others as they make no mention of notability. Jayran 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- As per my comment, the 100 reviews on Amazon are enough for me to say keep. -Quasipalm 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- This article has been tagged with a notability tag for months and no one has ever suggested why it is notable. It is telling that this book has received no hits on Lexis Nexis or Google News. There appears to be no reviews by a rs. The fact that this book hasn't even received attention in its own cottage industry shows that it has no notability. Of the books listed, several should be deleted but the Melville book is notable on the basis of its author and among that list, the book, Harmful to Minors won a book award and attracted media attention. I don't know about the others as they make no mention of notability. Jayran 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- And see WP:UGH for the reason why this and not the other works are listed for deleting. And as long as we're WP:SPAMMING then a couple of editors here might want to check out: WP:JNN, WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOEFFORT. Rune X2 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (and per DGG - rarely do I see a delete !vote
) as it fails all the criterias at WP:BK. It would help the editors who are advocating 'keep' if they showed how it meets the WP:N & WP:BK criterias instead of raising arguments for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. Also, canvassing (or what can be deemed canvassing) is not the best approach and can be seen as disruptive. → AA (talk) — 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- To this I'd like to add that some of them should assume good faith, and not make some shrill or insinuating accusations that every editor voting delete is trying to censor this book--Victor falk 08:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have already made the case that I find the book noteable on account of the author being noteable.
- And talking of "shrill or insinuating accusations", then it would help if you didn't make ridiculous exaggerations ("every editor") and shrill or insinuating accusations against editors trying to keep this book. And remember this is not a vote, and that merely stating any number of WPs, WP:BK, WP:N or just stating it isn't notable or the article hasn't been worked on, is neither here nor there. Rune X2 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- sorry, I meant "a lot of", "many" or "most"--Victor falk 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please accept the fact that an author's notability doesn't make ipso facto any and all of his books noteable--Victor falk 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No. I can easily accept the obvious fact that my opinion is not shared by most editors in this discussion, what I don’t like is how "noteability" is presented by some as a scientific verifiable fact, rather than just your own opinion. I also don’t much care being accused of making "shrill or insinuating accusations" Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- You have stated it - yes. Could you elaborate please and explain then how "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." (the example given is "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study."). Thanks. → AA (talk) — 10:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- For fear of repeating myself, then I believe the author's page would become less useful and interesting, when you remove links to his books. I personally like to browse around Wikipedia, clicking from one article to the next and see where it takes me. If I was to happen on this article, and was interested in his book, then with this article gone, I’d have to copy-paste the book into Amazon or Google or whatever to see what it is about. This to me is a less useful Wikipedia. Of course, the material could just be lifted from the book page and moved to the author-page. But that would make it unnecessary cumbersome page. – Do you believe the author article would be improved by removing this article?
-
- To this I'd like to add that some of them should assume good faith, and not make some shrill or insinuating accusations that every editor voting delete is trying to censor this book--Victor falk 08:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I also happen to believe Wikipedia should have room to cater to less mainstream, or even obscure, interests.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And finally I find it somewhat disingenuous to re-nominate an already nominated article, without there being substantial new development to think the situation has altered in some essential way. But the nominater, who hasn’t even bothered to come back and discuss his nomination, made no startling new arguments. Just a tired rehash of the old ones. It smacks of putting up an article you dislike for nomination again and again until one day you get your way. I don't like it when my country does it, and I don't like it when I see it on Wikipedia Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation and please remember to assume good faith. The nominator has given a valid reason for the nomination - i.e. fails WP:N. The first AfD (which closed as "No consensus") was 2 years ago and therefore the article has had sufficient time to establish notability (which, once established, would ensure the article is not nominated again for this reason). We shall see what the closing admin says this time as there does appear to be a clear consensus. → AA (talk) — 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus? What, I don't exist? No, there is no consensus as several editors have expressed their disagreement. If there was consensus we wouldn’t be talking. There do however seem to be a majority if that is what you mean. Rune X2 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means majority opinion. faithless (speak) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't mean that either. You may want to look at WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus in practice CitiCat ♫ 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means majority opinion. faithless (speak) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus? What, I don't exist? No, there is no consensus as several editors have expressed their disagreement. If there was consensus we wouldn’t be talking. There do however seem to be a majority if that is what you mean. Rune X2 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation and please remember to assume good faith. The nominator has given a valid reason for the nomination - i.e. fails WP:N. The first AfD (which closed as "No consensus") was 2 years ago and therefore the article has had sufficient time to establish notability (which, once established, would ensure the article is not nominated again for this reason). We shall see what the closing admin says this time as there does appear to be a clear consensus. → AA (talk) — 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- And finally I find it somewhat disingenuous to re-nominate an already nominated article, without there being substantial new development to think the situation has altered in some essential way. But the nominater, who hasn’t even bothered to come back and discuss his nomination, made no startling new arguments. Just a tired rehash of the old ones. It smacks of putting up an article you dislike for nomination again and again until one day you get your way. I don't like it when my country does it, and I don't like it when I see it on Wikipedia Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete: if a non-notable book has a decent article I might WP:IGNORE or bend the rules a bit, but if the article doesn't even say as much as the blurb on the book's back cover... why do we even have it? It's puffery or vanity. Now if the article was expanded that wouldn't make the book more notable but it might sway some editors. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of notability in the form of non-trivial coverage in secondary reliable sources has been provided. not now, nor in the 2 years since the first nomination. ITAQALLAH 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per others, no evidence of notability.Bless sins 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The book's content is irrelevant, what matters is that the article definitely fails to illustrate that the book meets the notability criteria in WP:BK and therefore it cannot remain. --Kudret abiTalk 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - there are two reviews listed in the external links so it at least has some minimal coverage. // Liftarn
- 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.
![[40]](http://satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/oriente/IIIperiodo/mitanni.jpg){kind=link}