Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Pocceschi
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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:03Z
[edit] Rodney Pocceschi
Local police officer killed by a robber. Undoubtedly a tragedy, but doesn't seem encyclopedic. Chowbok ☠ 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep any police officer killed in duty is notable. Otherwise you may as well get rid of the whole police killed in duty categories. These officers slain are more notable than most of the minor athletes who have articles on wiki and there are hundreds of them. This article has been here for over year. Deletionists would be better off fighting vandals and improving articles rather than deleting articles.Rlevse 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd strongly disagree that "any police officer killed in duty is notable"...One can make an individual case that the circustances surrounding a police officer's death while on duty might make a stronger WP:BIO case that is otherwise weak, but inherent notability does not, nor should not, exist for a single class of persons. Wikipedia is not a memorial, so the merits of a subject's inclusion should be weighed independent of how one personally feels for the subject in particular of fallen police officers in general. Furthermore, the presence of "minor athletes" on Wikipedia has little bearing on this individual case—nominate those articles for deletion if you don't believe they belong. Also, the attack on "deletionists" is a tired ad hominem that implies that those that support deletion are somehow less interested in making quality contributions to Wikipedia than "non-deletionists." -- Scientizzle 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say I wanted the minor athletres deleted. I'm pointing out the double and inconsistent standard. If you want them deleted, go ahead. I don't make a habit of deleting other people's work. On another note, thank you for adding the vests entry to the article as it certainly helps.Rlevse 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's a double standard--WP:BIO is the standard by which fallen police officers, bench-warming baseball players and everyone else is judged. You haven't made a case as to why "officers slain are more notable than most of the minor athletes who have articles" beyond the pathos of a fallen officer. -- Scientizzle 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you want to propose a guideline WP:COP that every officer killed in the line of duty gets an article, then propose it. Some of us might agree, but others might feel that any worker killed on the job is just as dead and just as sorely missed by co-workers and family. Farmers die in tractor rollovers. I think they are heroic to go out everyday knowing the risks. Same for utiility linemen, ironworkers, roofers, and miners. How about all soldiers killed in all wars? Way more heroic. The question is notability: was the death noted in multiple independent reliable verifiable sources in more than a passing reference or a listing like an obituary? More than a person who was a victim of violent crime?Edison 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's a double standard--WP:BIO is the standard by which fallen police officers, bench-warming baseball players and everyone else is judged. You haven't made a case as to why "officers slain are more notable than most of the minor athletes who have articles" beyond the pathos of a fallen officer. -- Scientizzle 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say I wanted the minor athletres deleted. I'm pointing out the double and inconsistent standard. If you want them deleted, go ahead. I don't make a habit of deleting other people's work. On another note, thank you for adding the vests entry to the article as it certainly helps.Rlevse 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd strongly disagree that "any police officer killed in duty is notable"...One can make an individual case that the circustances surrounding a police officer's death while on duty might make a stronger WP:BIO case that is otherwise weak, but inherent notability does not, nor should not, exist for a single class of persons. Wikipedia is not a memorial, so the merits of a subject's inclusion should be weighed independent of how one personally feels for the subject in particular of fallen police officers in general. Furthermore, the presence of "minor athletes" on Wikipedia has little bearing on this individual case—nominate those articles for deletion if you don't believe they belong. Also, the attack on "deletionists" is a tired ad hominem that implies that those that support deletion are somehow less interested in making quality contributions to Wikipedia than "non-deletionists." -- Scientizzle 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Rodney Pocceschi receives 172 unique Ghits. I added the only working GNews link to the article. Even the info I've added, and the memorial sites I've perused, have not convinced me that this subjects death, while needless & tragic, merits an encyclopedia article as per WP:BIO. -- Scientizzle 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, with respect. WP:NOT a memorial. To say "any police officer killed in duty is notable" makes most rabid deletionists look decidedly moderate. Deizio talk 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI submit that the mere fact that his death inspired his family to save others with the Fallen Officers fund makes him notable, and that bit was found by Scientizzle.Rlevse 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Deizio and Scientizzle. If the Fallen Officers Remembered is a notable organisation (I searched but the name of the org lacks googleability), then an article about it should be created with the fact that it was inspired by Rodney Pocceschi. As noted in one of the linked articles, a law enforcement agent is killed every two days --jaydj 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- So the fact that it's common makes it non-notable?Rlevse 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- delete We seem to have decided that individual murders normally do not count. Either the victim or the murderer or the circumstances most have some distinctive notability, and being a police officer is not enough--per jaydj.DGG 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Who's "we"? Not I for sure.Rlevse 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I AM MY 23000+ EDITS JUST QUIT WIKI. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SORT OF MENTALITY. DELETIONISTS, CATEGORY NAZIS, CABALISTS, ETC MAKE ME WANT TO PUKE!Rlevse 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that... -- Scientizzle 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- As am I, and I truly hope you reconsider. Deizio talk 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- And as an aside, I'd like to agree with the editor above (but in less strident language) how disheartening I find it when articles that perhaps fall short of global significance but still are miles away from vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. Deletionism (of things that aren't obvious junk) strikes me as painfully counter to the long-term goals of Wikipedia. WP:NOT gets bandied around a lot, as in "Wiki is not a memorial." Very little attention seems to be paid to what is the very first section of that article, namely, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Ford MF 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I voted to delete for lack of notability, but I would rather have an article for every police officer, construction worker, or soldier killed on the job than for every episode of a game show, every subway station, TV mast, 2 lane state highway, video game character, un-famous kid band. middle school, or city street, which some people love to create. Edison 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- And as an aside, I'd like to agree with the editor above (but in less strident language) how disheartening I find it when articles that perhaps fall short of global significance but still are miles away from vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. Deletionism (of things that aren't obvious junk) strikes me as painfully counter to the long-term goals of Wikipedia. WP:NOT gets bandied around a lot, as in "Wiki is not a memorial." Very little attention seems to be paid to what is the very first section of that article, namely, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Ford MF 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- As am I, and I truly hope you reconsider. Deizio talk 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that... -- Scientizzle 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also strong keep. And I also do kinda agree that murdered police officers are almost always notable (insofar as I'm willing do indulge a guideline I mostly disagree with). The fact that virtually all municipalities have laws designating violence against an officer as a separate category of offense, and that the epithet 'cop killer' exists and has such cultural currency is fair evidence that society treats the murder of a police officer as fundamentally different from, say, the murder of a teenage gangbanger. Both actor and victim become at least worthy of consideration for an article in my eyes. Ford MF 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Deizio, with whose observation that to say "any police officer killed in duty is notable" makes most rabid deletionists look decidedly moderate I concur entirely (to be sure, the putative notability of the subject is not exclusively the fact of his being killed whilst on duty; were, for instance, Fallen Officers Remembered to be understood as a notable/prominent group, it's likely that notability for Pocceschi would entail). I am, as others, altogether unhappy that we might lose an exceedingly excellent contributor in view, inter al., of this AfD (and I'd join in their entreaties that he stay), but this seems a pretty clear case. Joe 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Being killed in the line of duty does not automatically confer notability, and nothing in the article suggests that this individual did anything notable (in the Wikipedia sense) during his lifetime. News coverage seems mostly local (correct me if I'm wrong?). Article fails WP:BIO. Note: around the world there are literally 1000s of officers who are killed in the line of duty every year. Does this make them non-notable? IMHO yes, although others may disagree. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are other articles out there more worthy of deleting.Balloonman 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote count and you don't seem to have made an argument for why you want this kept. Argument by comparison is meaningless, it may well be that all the "more worthy of deletion" articles, as well as this one should be deleted. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Ford MF says it best..."how disheartening I find it when articles that perhaps fall short of global significance but still are miles away from vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. Deletionism (of things that aren't obvious junk) strikes me as painfully counter to the long-term goals of Wikipedia..." Wiki needs to reassess how it implements things or Larry Sanger and his Citizendium project will snow it.Sumoeagle179 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote count. Being disheartened or disagreeing with the way Wikipedia process works is not a valid argument for deletion. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- General comment A lot of you need to change perspective and get a bit more creative, I'm sure there are a lot of notable incidents involving fallen officers - if something gets widely reported then put together a page called "Rodney P murder" and tie in info about the killer, the death, news reports and such biographical info about the victim as is appropriate. But don't slam others for following the rules, it's clear this officer does not neet WP:BIO. If the memorial clause was relaxed then slain officers might well be among the first to deserve articles, but a hell of a lot of people die for a hell of a lot of reasons and I for one don't want to see WP turn into an online book of remembrance. I'll be the first to change my vote if somebody changes this page into an article covering all the aspects of a newsworthy event. Deizio talk 11:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Keep If articles listing high ranking police officers that were just high ranking police officers are kept on wikipedia, then an article of a police officer killed in he line of duty is definitely notable. Furthermore, "It was the first felonious killing of a Virginia Beach police officer in twenty-two years" and "founded an organization named Fallen Officers Remembered" make it more noteable still. There are plenty of similar articles regarding military personnel with similar (or less) notoriety, who have fallen in the line of duty, and I've never heard the "wikipedia is not a rememberance book" comment used regarding any of them, no hostility intended Deiz. SGGH 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Arguing by precedent or comparison is not a valid reason to !vote keep or delete. Every article should be judged on its merits. If there are articles on high ranking police officers or army personnel that do not meet WP:BIO then perhaps they too should be nominated for deletion. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- (EC) Articles about high-ranking personnel still have to satisfy WP:BIO, and any article nominated for deletion must be judged on its own merits. If you find yourself making vague references to other articles to validate this one, rather than direct references to policies and guidelines (which you'll note I am doing) then maybe this subject isn't actually encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" is official policy whether you've heard it before or not. His family founded this organisation of unknown importance after he died. The lack of cop-killing in Virginia Beach is a matter for "Crime in Virginia Beach". I don't take anything at AfD personally, I wish everyone else felt the same :) Deizio talk 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nom. Merely being dead is not a criterion for notability. Tevildo 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Folantin 14:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial, no assertion of notability from major reliable sources. Moreschi Deletion! 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Under the circumstances I argee it is notable. Dep. Garcia (Talk) (Help Desk) 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. An officer killed on the job is not more article-worthy than a soldier killed in a war (50,000 in Vietnam, 24,000,000 in WW 2, nearly 3,000 in Iraq) or for that matter a utility lineman electrocuted while restoring power or an ironworker killed building a bridge. What matters is whether the death was notable in terms of press coverage, things named after them, books or tv shows about the incident , like The Onion Field. This officer got some local press coverage, but really no more than a victim of armed robbery or domestic violence might have gotten if they were mediagenic. Edison 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a notable fact and article, it should be keptJeff503 12:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment "any article nominated for deletion must be judged on its own merits" I wasn't implying that just because other articles are kept means this one must be kept, I was pointing out that wikipedia has enough space for articles of lesser notoriety. I still think that the "It was the first felonious killing of a Virginia Beach police officer in twenty-two years" and "founded an organization named Fallen Officers Remembered" make it notable, aswell as the $44'000 money grant. I don't mean to step on your toes when I say that, Deiz. :) SGGH 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problemo. I'm certainly not one to stand in the way of consensus, although the number of "strong keep" votes being expressed here with no recourse to policy is something I would certainly consider if closing this debate, AfD is not and never has been a headcount. I do admire all editors who spend time researching topics and creating articles, as it's one of the things I enjoy the most about Wikipedia myself. May the verdict of the closing admin be declared "wonderful" by all those who witness it. Deizio talk 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Observation Wikipedia seems to not have the article on the Fallen Officers Remembered. Why not write one, then merge him under it.Jeff503 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome to be bold and do so, but the organization doesn't appear to have received much coverage...maybe you can dig up some more. -- Scientizzle 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment "any article nominated for deletion must be judged on its own merits" I wasn't implying that just because other articles are kept means this one must be kept, I was pointing out that wikipedia has enough space for articles of lesser notoriety. I still think that the "It was the first felonious killing of a Virginia Beach police officer in twenty-two years" and "founded an organization named Fallen Officers Remembered" make it notable, aswell as the $44'000 money grant. I don't mean to step on your toes when I say that, Deiz. :) SGGH 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As said above, Wikipedia is not a memorial - the unfortunate event seems to have no extra encyclopedic relevance. Maybe a fallen officers memorial Wiki would be an appropriate place?Millis 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. From WP:BIO:
- 1) "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies).
- People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them."
- 2) "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."
- This article satisfies NPOV, verifiability, does not suffer from OR, and there is public interest. Non-uniform application of the notability concept seems to be a recurring problem. Articles on video game characters, comic book characters, etc. exist to fill in information of interest to "special interest" groups. Likewise, this subject is of interest to a different "audience". The added fact that his death has inspired a grass roots effort to supply police officers with needed life-saving equipment adds to his interest. — ERcheck (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regular AfD visitors are well up on :BIO. You're making vague references to video game characters but not addressing what it is this individual achieved that makes him notable, nor establishing the significance of this organisation. As I said, this would be fine as an article about the incident given sufficient news coverage, but is much weaker as an article about the officer unlucky enough to be involved in it. Deizio talk 15:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." BigDT 16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Coverage that's "mostly local" is still coverage, and shouldn't be deprecated on that basis. JamesMLane t c 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I learned stuff from the article and found it interesting. —Kenyon (t·c) 09:00, 25 December 2006 (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.
