Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hurley

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 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Since the bio is unduly negative it is in violation of BLP. Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hurley[edit]

Chris Hurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

per WP:BLP1E. If Wikipedia's BLP policy means anything, then this article should be deleted and not redirected anywhere. Hurley is a senior sergeant, not a high ranking Queensland Police officer, and other than his involvement in the incident that lead to a death that lead to a riot, is entirely non-notable. He was, rightly or wrongly, found not guilty of the charges against him and given that this is the only thing he is notable for, we should show some common decency and remove the article. Note that the notableevents involved are covered elsewhere. Mattinbgn\talk 06:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom, some serious WP:BLP issues here. Cover the event, not the person. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because if there is a redirect then my understanding is that any search for Hurley would point to the Palm Island riot article, which is an improvement on the current situation but still ties the Chris Hurley page to the one event. Maybe this is unavoidable but I don't see why it must happen. I would rather leave the page as a redlink. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Chris Hurley may have originally risen to public notoriety on the basis of just that one single event, but his fame has grown beyond that to include award winning essays & a whole book discussing Hurley's life and police service in Queensland Aboriginal communities (see here & here) .. in what his biographer Chloe Hooper described at a Melbourne writers festival as "a modern morality tale about white and black Australia" (refer here). Perhaps article should be tidied up/ rewritten a little, but otherwise kept Bruceanthro (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think that WP:ONEEVENT especially cover the event, not the person, precludes a redirect to the Palm Island article. I haven't had a chance to look at the sources provided above by Bruceanthro but there may be enough to pass notability aside from the riot. StarM 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is exactly the type of article that we have the WP:BLP#1E provision for. That perhaps the press has now taken a minor interest in things about him that otherwise would pass unnoticed (per the links provided by Bruceanthro) is not significant. Almost any figure who is captured in the media spotlight gets sort of attention to their daily life - Peripitus (Talk) 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the time has passed. The main article is enough, Phenss (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - salting the page. considering the redirect looking at article traffic stats[1] this month so far 260 odd times with a 20%(51 hits) of the traffic in the one day since the commencement of this discussion, other months have between 110[2]-280[3] hits per month with those figures I dont see a need for the redirect given that it raises WP:BLP concerns as Hurley was found not guilty in relation to the 2004 Palm Island death in custody, though maybe a redirect to Queensland Police as he is/was QLD police officer. Gnangarra 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person has become famous in Queensland as a result of his involvement in the death of Doomadgee. His trial for manslaughter was a highly publicized one, and the findings of the Coroner and decisions by lawyers leading up to to his trial also received a lot of attention and attracted a lot of controversy. I'm afraid all of this is a separate, albeit related one to the palm island riots. The Coroner's findings, as well as those of the DPP and Lawrence Street and his trial were not a part of the riots themselves. Apollo1986User_talk:Apollo1986 —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - if the article has POV issues, then we should fix it up if we truly are to keep Wikipedia a cooperative community. Hurley is definitely notable in the media and just about all the statements in that article are referenced. If you need positive references to balance it, then fine and good, but to just delete the article is purely laziness (and in effect an exercise in censorship). Bad things happen and just because they are doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover it. BLP1E is just an excuse to indulge in lazy editing too, so there is no good justification in quoting it as a reason to delete. INTGAFW (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BLP1E is Wikipedia policy and balance in an article is not a simple matter of having 50% positive content to balance the 50% negative. The existence of this article, in any shape, reflects negatively on a non-public person who has been not been found guilty of any charge. As for enforcing BLP being "pure laziness"—pure laziness is refusing to enforce core Wikipedia policy. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "core policy" - it's a pathetic excuse for paranoid management here who don't want to be sued for defamation and is a policy that was never agreed to by the majority of users and is just another excuse for the deletionists to flourish. It's absolute censorship if you delete this article (and especially so if you delete the redirect) and shows how much this thing is going downhill. You can find all those articles in the media articles that are linked, so you're not going to stop the information being developed. So fix it up so at least Wikipedia can be seen to have a good and balanced article on this. INTGAFW (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you retire from Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)How is it censorship? No-one is stopping you writing whatever you want on the topic, just not here. It is not censorship to enforce BLP1E any more than it is censorship to enforce WP:OR by deleting non-complying content, another core policy (not sure if you class that policy as "pathetic" and "a joke" as well). WP:BLP is about more than just our legal obligations that you so blithely wish to throw out the window, it is also about our moral responsibility to treat those people we write about with dignity and respect. Given that all relevant content in this article is better placed elsewhere, the only reason for this article's existence (and the redirect if it is retained) is to tie a non-public person to the death of another person, for which he was tried and found not guilty? Why should a person, having not been found guilty of any crime and having stayed away from the public eye—both during and after the trial—have activist editors using Wikipedia as their soapbox continue to try and cast aspersions on him and why should Wikipedia allow itself to be used like that? If you want to go elsewhere and write whatever you like about the subject elsewhere, bearing the consequences of your actions yourself, be my guest. If the newspapers wish to print whatever on the topic, fine. None of that means that BLP1E should not be enforced here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable! while Chris Hurley may (?) wish to fade into obscurity, out of the public eye, ... the fact remains that he has had a third party, in depth biographical material published about him (see previouos comment) .. .. estabishing him as a likely and historically enduring notable person in both Palm Island and Queensland history of police - Aboriginal relations ... WP:BIO notability criteria is satisfied, and future Wikipedia users researching Queensland history ought legitimately expect and find article on Chris Hurley on Wikipedia!! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (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/Chris_Hurley&oldid=1069231203"