Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Atlanta police sickout

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 I am withdrawing the AfD in favor of a requested merger. Neutrality^talk 20:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Atlanta police sickout[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content in this article can (and has) been easily summarized in three or four sentences at Killing of Rayshard Brooks. It is not necessary to have a separate article, and WP:NOTNEWS implications are present. I redirected the article to Killing of Rayshard Brooks; that was reverted, so I am bringing the article here. Neutrality^talk 21:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Tagging @EEng: since he first had the idea.[reply]

Merge/redirect to Killing of Rayshard Brooks (as nom)—the relevant conduct is already merged, so this can be affected with a straight redirect. Delete as second choice. Neutrality^talk 21:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there an argument for deletion? I don't see one. City-wide police work stoppages are rare and notable, particularly as a coordinated reaction to a police killing. The article is underdeveloped but deserves to stay. --Lockley (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that it is not independently notable outside the context of the Rayshard Brooks killing, and can be addressed sufficiently in the context of that article, without a standalone article. Neutrality^talk 00:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then it seems to come down to a single issue, notability. NOTNEWS also mentions a standard of "enduring notability". I'd agree that the article needs improvement. I see that news articles draw a clear cause-effect relationship between the charging of Garrett Rolfe and the sick-out. Public employees in Georgia are forbidden from striking (GA Code Sec. 45-19-2), so the Atlanta police were arguably breaking the law. The head of the local International Brotherhood of Police Officers was careful to characterize it as NOT the blue flu and NOT a strike. None of those points are (yet) explicit in the article as it stands now. More broadly a police strike of any kind is a threat to public order, inherently significant, and worth understanding. --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need not question the subject's notability in order to question whether it's best presented on a page of its own. See my !vote below. E Eng 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a recent event of course, but it is the subject of considerable major media coverage, as is clear from the many sources cited, so I wouldn't be surprised if it achieved long-term attention. We have fulfilled WP:SIGCOV already, so at least for now we ought to keep it. Patiodweller (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merged Unless Further Developed. Although it appears to be just like two other standalone blue flu articles and it's apparently rare - I don't find that Atlanta has ever had such an occurrence in the past - unlike the other events, although many officers, and three zones, at one time participated, it was not as coordinated as the 1981 Milwaukee Police Strike or the 1971 NYPD Work Stoppage. Also, it appears adequately covered in Killing of Rayshard Brooks. Nonetheless, if it is further developed, then it should be reconsidered as a standalone. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged is a somewhat confusing way to put it. E Eng 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been merged, so keep it so; see no reason to keep the 2020 article at this time; redirect. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Notability isn't the issue here. The guideline on point is WP:NOPAGE, which provides
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

As Q-v points out, the sickout is adequately covered on the Brooks page. In fact, it's covered better on the Brooks page, because there it's presented in full context. On the separate sickout page, even an abbreviated presentation of the Brooks background takes up, literally, half the page. Plus that background material inevitably gets out of sync with the actual Brooks page. This is a classic application of NOPAGE. E Eng 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EEng: and @Neutrality:. With no trace of snark -- honestly -- I'm confused now. You've put forth contradictory reasons for this AfD. Do you both agree the topic is notable? Could you please coordinate and clarify, so I can answer appropriately? --Lockley (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to worry about whether it's notable, because even if it is it's nonetheless best treated on the main Brooks page. That's what NOPAGE (quoted above) is about. Neutrality seems to be questioning the notability, but he/she also says It is not necessary to have a separate article, which could be seen as a NOPAGE argument as well. E Eng 12:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EEng. I'm saying it's noteworthy in the context of the Brooks article, but that it's not independently notable so as to require a page. Neutrality^talk 14:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll just say it one more time: bringing notability or independent notability into it makes this much more complicated than it needs to be, because it becomes a tussle over sources. By focusing on how best to present the topic (i.e. on its own page vs. within the Brooks page) makes the question much clearer and avoids the notability fight. E Eng 18:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOTALLY CONFUSED. If the nom agrees the article is notable, verifiable, etc., and it's only a question of whether the content should be merged or not, then the !votes should come down to Merge or Keep. Is that right? Nobody's talking about deleting the article? ...Then that's not a good fit with an AfD discussion where editors are used to assessing for possible deletion. I'm not complaining, I don't require another explanation, I'm familiar with NOPAGE, and if merged I'll survive just fine. This process just seems sideways to me. --Lockley (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We call it Articles for Deletion as a shorthand because Articles for Deletion and Maybe Merging or Redirecting or I Think Some Other Possibilities I Can't Remember Now would be awkward.

If you'd change your !vote above it would help tip the scales and we can go home sooner. E Eng 03:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, @EEng:, since I'm familiar with your stream of sarcasm that always slightly misses the point, I feel comfortably at home. My opinion's clear enough. Hope you're well. --Lockley (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't sarcasm, it was irony. Jeesh! I only meant that since you said you could live with a merge it would speed things up if you made that clear. E Eng 20:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng and Hello!:. Sorry, I thought it was sarcasm. Irony would have been something more like this: Articles for Deletion and Maybe Merging or Redirecting or I Think Some Other Possibilities I Can't Remember Now. As to changing my vote, nope. This labor action clearly deserves its own article. Besides, it's changed a lot since the nom, no way it's a clean redirect at this point. Wanna go home early? Let it live. --Lockley (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned that an unusually large proportion of editors are anemic so I'm making an effort to add extra irony to my posts. E Eng 22:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has had more than enough coverage to justify an article. Juno (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article needs more information but the topic is encyclopedic. Nika2020 (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is indeed distressing to see how many people just drop in to comment without bothering to understand what's being proposed. Whether the topic is encyclopedic, or whether there's sufficient coverage, isn't the question. The question is whether the reader is best served by treating the topic in a four-sentence article vs. those same four sentences in the main Brooks article. E Eng 12:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.