Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Barker (police officer)

Add links
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 redirect to Barker Crossing. henrik•talk 07:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Barker (police officer)[edit]

Bill Barker (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person notable for one event. No lasting notability outside of the wider event. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this person is only notable for one event, and of course cannot use this event to parlay greater sigificance for himself in society, for he unfortunately died in this event. Rasputin72 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep: When I first read this, I accidentally skipped the sentence about the bridge. I think having a bridge named after him gets him out of WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's all the same event, the bridge was finished 2 weeks after he died. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? Stuff like that make WP:BLP1E invalid because it has long lasting notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess we have very different ideas about what long lasting means then. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually the bridge does not confer long-lasting notability - it's only a temporary bridge & will come down as soon as the main road crossing is rebuilt. Nancy talk 10:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is still up for discussion about being merged. Discussion here. Martin451 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E does not apply, although he is notable only for one event. Barker has received substantial press coverage, enough to warrant a separate article about him. Gordon Brown described him as a "very heroic, very brave man". Prince Charles visited his family the day after his funeral, and he even has a bridge named after him. Martin451 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it applies. Even the examples in the actual policy are of dead people. If it didn't apply, there would be no way to prevent any person having a vaguely newsworthy death from being given an article giving undue weight to that single event (and this is the NOT#NEWS definition of newsworthy, not the lasting notability definition) MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently notable, even from a single event. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Article creator. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete what we mean by NOT TABLOID is that what the person has received the coverage for must be in some way significant in the ordinary sense. If he had died by being struck by a car accidentally, , then unless there were some specific very unusual features, there would not ordinarily have been an article. This is considerably more unusual, but not more important. Nor did it represent see any particular bravery. As even the speaker at the funeral said, hundreds of people were out doing just the same; directing traffic in a storm is a matter of routine. The bridge named after him was a 52 ft. long footbridge, not a major construction. The news media seize on pathetic human interest stories like this, but there is no reason for them to me in an encyclopedia. If people here have been affected likewise, it'll be easy enough to delete in 6 months when it will be forgotten. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not like everyone or mostly everyone that dies gets an honor. Barely anyone's deaths get an honor like that. How many people do you think get even minor bridges as honors after their deaths? Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that it is a little footbridge is an example of what I can only call the cute side of tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not apply, but the general idea behind it does, that to be notable, a person has to do something notable. The GNG even at its strongest interpretation is just a presumption,and if it leads to nonsensical results, then the presumption was wrong. I used to think the GNG was not helpful because it was too restrictive, I now think it's either too restrictive or permissive in equal measure, which is beginning to approach being totally useless. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG encourages article writers to start with reliable and secondary sources, and to that extent it is very useful. In this case, the secondary source material is not so great, and I do think it makes sense for the well sourced information, (most of the first paragraph and paragraphs 3-5) to be included at the merge target. I do not think that we need to recount his work history and names from his family. At a minimum, a redirect, and the dab page, should be kept, because his name is a reasonable serach term. I suppose I am really arguing for merge and redirect, but hold back because I don't think AfD discussions should force instant mergers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E applies, to suggest otherwise misses the whole point of the policy. Just because he is dead does not mean there is not potential for harm from having a biography - it applies to relatives as well as the subject. And just because he died in the event does not mean that we are not supposed to consider whether by having a standalone biography is giving undue weight to that event. Both of these issues are core reasons why it was written in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revisionist, and wrong. Not living. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean this as a serious rebuttal? Go and start an RFC if you doubt me, or at least provide some evidence of site wide policy discussion where your interpretation is in any way supported, I've certainly never seen one. A couple of throwaway words won't disprove anything tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though mostly your last sentence. WP:BLP was written overtly for the positive reason of "sensitivity", but really in response of the negative motivator of a very real threat of legal action if we continued to host (have no policy against) libel, and even He Himself got involved. In this case, there is no hint of libel, no alleged sensitivity concerns, beyond the mention of his wife's name, which I think is being plenty cautious.
I was rankled by your implication that BLP applies to everything. If you try hard, you can probably find evidence of every other policy in WP:BLP. Yes, there are words in BLP that apply to this case. No, that does not mean that WP:BLP is the guiding document for this case. In suggesting that the point, core and origins of the policy say certain things, you are seriously misreading the policy. I suggest that you go back to the title. You words imply to me that your belief goes beyond mere expanding WP:BLP to include also the "recently dead". That was a serious proposal a couple of years ago, but didn't win consensus.
This discussion is not about sensitivities, legal threats, or anything that WP:BLP was written to address. It is merely another borderline "notability" case on whether this brief part of the history of the world warrants a stand-alone article. Maybe it doesn't, in which case the information belongs somewhere else, basically in another article that provides the context to this story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for actual proof supporting your argument, not an essay about how you think you are right. Stop wasting my time. MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to stay focused on the question of deletion of the article Bill Barker (police officer). I think you have a common misapprehension of the intent and applicability of WP:BLP. I think your nomination rationale is flawed. You also said something alluding to original motivation of WP:BLP. I am more that happy to discuss further, but elsewhere (eg WT:BLP), and I may need you to better define your question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As two people wrote in Talk:Bill Barker (police officer): (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • ...However, as the late Mr. Barker received significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, he meets Wikipedia's notability standards. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk)
    • PC Barker may or may not be noteworthy (i.e. worth noting), which is a value judgement, but he was noted, many times in independent sources, which is evidence that he became noteable (i.e. able to be noted). There is even a bridge named after him now. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About "Barker Crossing is a temporary prefab army bridge": I suspect that this bridge will be there for a long time yet, particularly since it has been fitted with street lighting etc, and time will show if the name 'Barker Crossing' is transferred to any new permanent bridge built there instead of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete. My preference would be to merge this, but there is already a discussion going on elsewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons given under the merge discussion that was ongoing when this AfD request was raised. Hallucegenia (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, subject meets the main criterion of WP:BIO, that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Hallucegenia (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing any notability independent of the manner of his death which however tragic just occurred because he was doing his job (sorry if this sounds callous) and all the fuss (inc the bridge name) was just symptomatic of the awful mawkishness of the British press at the moment. Dead or alive the basic principles of BLP1E still apply. I give no weight to the bridge argument; it is a temporary bridge which will be dismantled just as soon as the original crossing is reinstated & even if it were a permanent structure would need no more than a line in the bridge's article explaining the origin of the name. Nancy talk 10:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only evidence that I can find that says that the bridge is likely to be dismantled are sources like [1], which all seem to include the phrase "There is already strong support in the community for the name to be transferred in the long term to the replacement permanent road bridge once the temporary crossing is dismantled." Regards Hallucegenia (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my !vote you will see that it is not predicated on the bridge's permanence or otherwise - "...& even if it were a permanent structure would need no more than a line in the bridge's article explaining the origin of the name." Nancy talk 11:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are an encyclopedia, not a WP:MEMORIAL. Yes, he's dead. I still think BLP1E applies in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The unnecessary deletion forces are at it again. If you limit people who are notable for one event, you might as well eliminate any hero like Chesley Sullenberger or assassin. Quit deleting useful information.Trackinfo (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We delete "WP:USEFUL" information all the time. We're building an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid or a memorial. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Barker Crossing (named after him). His only notability is for being drowned when bravely trying to save others from crossing the dangerous bridge. A section in the articel about the bridge could usefully explain who he was and as to his career. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, PC Barker is sufficiently notable to sustain an article. There was significant international coverage of his death at the time. The naming of the bridge after him also adds weight to his notability. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you any evidence of this significant international interest? I would be amazed if this was anything more than local reprints of Reuters feeds, which would not do much to show Bill Barker is not a BLP1E case, given the fact they would only actually constitute one source, and not demonstrate significant interest beyond their temporary news value. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. --BozMo talk 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There have been several mentions of WP:BLP1E here, including in the original request for deletion. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E does not apply: the whole of the policy WP:BLP is specifically about living persons. In this case, the relevant policy is surely WP:BIO1E, which is significantly less restrictive than WP:BLP1E. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Re my comments on the talk page. Many people have died in floods, that in itself does not constitute notability. The only argument for keeping it is it being reported in the national news at the time (unlike the other victims), however being as the event in itself does not constitute notability then unless the media storm itself does, I can not see an argument for keeping this page open. Inclidently I can not see that the bridge is notable, many 'unnotable' people have been used in naming local landmarks. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and one event issues. Possible merge to Barker Crossing, but I don't know if this is a plausible search term that wouldn't otherwise be caught up by the "search" function. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noting that the article Bill Barker (police officer) predates Barker Crossing, and that Barker Crossing contains the core of Bill Barker (police officer), and assuming that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barker Crossing will result in "keep", our best practice at respecting our copyrights requirements would be to redirect with full history intact in preference to "delete". While it may be technically true that one could assert that the authors of Barker Crossing wrote it directly from the sources without reference to early versions of Bill Barker (police officer), or that one could dump the author list of Bill Barker (police officer) onto the talk page Barker Crossing, converting to a redirect is clearly more respectful to the efforts of our writers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "to redirect with full history intact in preference to "delete"."? Redirect to delete is a non sequitur. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If given two options, where one is "to convert the page to a redirect, with the history available", and the other is "to delete", I say the first is preferable with respect to our best practice at complying with Wikipedia:Copyrights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:MAD. It looks like some degree of merging already occurred. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous merging may be a legitimate concern, see WT:Articles for deletion/Bill Barker (police officer)#Copied content. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And why does this matter, some may ask? Because if we don't respect our copyright requirements internally, we are in a very poor position to complain when others don't either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Barker_(police_officer)&oldid=1137619161"