Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight (police officer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. If there is consensus created that the article should be merged into the Riots article, ask me for the history and information. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Knight (police officer)

Patrick Knight (police officer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete. Non-notable police officer. Clear violation of WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. Only notability assertion is local news reports of sexual battery. Wikipedia is not the local newspaper. I kissed a girl with 13 fingers (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the creator of this article, I actually have no opinion on whether it stays or does not. Cincinnati does have a history of police-community relational problems that culminated in the 2001 Cincinnati riots. This incident, along with several others, played a role in the tension that led up to the violence. (Mind meal (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
  • I wouldn't be at all opposed to a merge with that article then. I kissed a girl with 13 fingers (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2001 Cincinnati riots per BLP1E. Article content (and contributor attribution info, per GFDL) will remain in the history and can be merged in as necessary. Changing to Merge since this title is not a likely search term. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as discussion above Dreamspy (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I fail to see the connection between the article in discussion and the proposed target of the merge or redirect in either article. Unless the connection is more explicitly stated in the proposed target, delete as the Patrick Knight article reads like a news release (or an editorial) and still runs afoul of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. B.Wind (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Clear WP:BLP violation, complete with unsourced inferences that Knight may have been involved in a murder. Half the article deals with an incident for which Knight was cleared, the likes of which cops in every city face on a regular basis without provoking Wikipedia articles. I would be very, very careful on what was merged where.  RGTraynor  14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Any inference you make in that regard is your own doing. Nothing in the article is unsourced. In fact, an initial source from a city paper had since been taken down on their site after the article was made. If you look at the history, that is the case. An internet archives search would demonstrate I was factually correct, which is all that I strove for. I know dealing with issues concerning police officer misconduct is a dicey issue, so I took great care not to include anything that wasn't in the sources. Nowhere in the article does it state Knight was involved in Mapp's death. Knight was not cleared of the main charge and was convicted of sexual battery and bribery. Only the facts, cleared or not of the other incident. The first incident was merely included to show that the same officer had made it in the news and newspapers previously and was already the subject of some level of controversy. As I've already stated, people can delete, merge, or do whatever they like with this article. Your last statement sounds almost like an intimidation tactic. (Mind meal (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete, attack article on a non notable subject and fails WP:BLP1E. Borderline grounds for speedy. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, BLP violation, having been convicted of a crime does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Corvus cornixtalk 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • redirect Is not a speedy deletion candidate (as I've tried to explain before penumbra BLP is not generally a good reason for speedy). However basic attitudes about BLP1E and why Knight's career and conviction are relevant make sense in the context of 2001 Cincinnati riots. Any info from there can be merged in as necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not speedy. Fails WP:BIO. Dorftrottel (criticise) 16:54, April 24, 2008
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:04, 27 April 2008 (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.