Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deandre Brunston

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deandre Brunston[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BIO, ~~so unnewsworthy that the L.A Times didn't even bother covering the story,~~ few google hits, mainly mirrors, the youtube video, and biased sources which called cops as "pigs" Delete Secret ^account 13:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am finding reliable sources that cover this person in detail: [1]. Also, the L.A. times *did* cover this story, it is not public access but the article cite is: Jose Cardenas, "Patt Morrison; Parolee, Police Dog Killed; The first sheriff's canine to die in the line of duty is accidentally shot as deputies confront man.", LA Times, Aug 26, 2003, page B.3., non-public-access version here: [2] The occurrence also attracted some attention from activists across the nation, as is evidenced by mention this article in a Spanish-language publication in Atlanta: [3]. Cazort (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so the L.A Times covered it, surpriced it didn't show up on Google News when I searched. But I don't see more help with reliable coverage, and the L.A Times covered it as a local news story, which local newspapers usually cover local police-involved shootings. Still qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likewise. Would anyone with full access to that like to confirm that the full (and small) article isn't mainly about the police dog, like the segment shown? As this article is really just about the Shooting of Deandre Brunston, why don't we have a Shooting of Marco article? Nevard (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 7 google news hits, including the LA Times. Ikip (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven google news hits doesn't mean nothing, all seven of those hits are from forums and not reliable sources. Can you provide any that aren't the local news story from the L.A Times. Secret ^account 17:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I examined all sources and only one is a forum. People's Weekly World (pww.org) is not a forum, it is a reliable news source, and the three hits on that site are all full articles (and not even opinion pieces): although it is openly written from a socialist perspective, I think it drives home the point I made earlier that this person's death has been picked up by activists. rwor.org is the official publication of the American Communist party, and The Militant is an international weekly socialist newspaper. All but the L.A. times article is non-local, and although it is in the local section, the L.A. Times is a very widely read paper. Cazort (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry I don't consider sources from obviously biased news sources as reliable, there is a WP:NPOV issue with those sources. Secret ^account 12:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial non-local coverage in reliable sources. DGG (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify...are you basing the comment on the erroneous comment that "all seven of those hits are from forums", or do you take issue with the reliability of the sources given? The sources other than the L.A. times all have a very clear socialist perspective; however, I don't see that as terribly relevant to this notability debate--this fact simply clarifies "who" is interested in this topic. Cazort (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also want to note the dates of the relevant articles, which demonstrates sustained interest in this topic, more than just local police news coverage. [4] was written nearly two years after the original L.A. times article, demonstrating that people remembered this case and were passionate enough about it to write an extensive article about Deandre Brunston's death. [5] mentions Deandre Brunston about a full year after that. Cazort (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per continued coverage in reliable sources 2003-2007[6]. Anything else is a matter for WP:Cleanup, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Hiding T 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify this as I asked above? Thanks. Cazort (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that for local events, the test for significance is coverage in major sources outside their immediate surroundings. Police mishandling of domestic violence is so common as to be generally a matter that will not get such wider coverage. DGG (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. There doesn't seem to be the coverage right this minute to create a balanced article. The most recent report is 18 months ago, so the level of reportage that has been generated doesn't seem to me to indicate the event is one to have impact on society. I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of that, but for me this incident, while a tragic one, hasn't generated a level of interest which would for me indicate it meets the relevant guidance and policies. Hiding T 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe we will just have to respectfully disagree. For me, this article: [7] is what swings it for me. It is NOT a local paper, and it covers information not in the original L.A. times article--including the wrongful death suit, and discussion of how this one death fits into a broader framework of problems and activism. Cazort (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails bio, one event, etc... Sorry he was killed, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how WP:BIO isn't passed? One event is certainly debatable, but I don't see any issue with BIO as the sources are significant in coverage, multiple and reliable. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added some material to the page, utilizing some of the sources I mentioned, and found another source although it is not particularly good for arguing notability. I will add more later. I think this article is salvageable, however--I haven't even begun using the original L.A. times article. Cazort (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep/move I hate these. Clearly passes WP:N and WP:BIO (neither of which say anything about local sources btw). NOT#NEWS is the obvious issue here. It was picked up by a number of specialized organizations that generate news coverage. So I'd say follow the advice we get for notnews and cover the event and not the person. It's just past NEWS in my opinion and has wide enough coverage that someone might come here looking to learn about the event. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the capitalist and overtly conservative news sources like the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Fox News (or pretty much anything Murdoch-owned); the Washington Times, and World Net Daily are reliable, then so are the news sources from the equally hard opposite end of the political spectrum. If we disallow leftist/socialist websites, then conservative rags like the WSJ and Washington Times are also no longer valid to use. It would be a mockery of NPOV otherwise. I've never believed that sourcing should be non-regional. That said, there's enough sourcing to keep. rootology (C)(T) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is arguing anything about capitalism and other aspects of the political spectrum. The argument is actually turning on whether this person's death, no matter how tragic, is something we should note in Wikipedia. Yes, that sentence sounds heartless, but it is working out how to balance these things up. If we want to talk about boases, I'm wondering how we judge that this persons death is of more value than any other persons death. That's the crucial turning point. Is it just that the death is covered in a small number of sources, because if that is the case, what are the implications? Hiding T 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the politics was in response to Secret's saying we should not us "biased sources which called cops as 'pigs'" which would fly in the face of NPOV. He's basically, in this nomination, elevating his own political views above WP:N and WP:NPOV, which is inappropriate. rootology (C)(T) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally did not pick up on that. My apologies. Hiding T 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very hard to argue that Brunston's death should not be noted/included in wikipedia. The question is just...how/where? This discussion is about whether Brunston should have a page. Hobit (and I would tend to agree with this somewhat) suggested that it might be better to cover the event, not the person--the lack of any sort of biographical information in reliable sources seems to back this up. Cazort (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding it that hard to argue the point. Are you suggesting we record every instance of wrongful death at the hands of the police? I'm not sure of the implications of that.Once you extend that across the globe, to avoid systemic bias... Hiding T 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... even if it was only those deaths questioned by major national newspapers in their main sections, which would of course exclude this, I think that would be pretty questionable. Nevard (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia should include every instance of wrongful death at the hands of police that has had an extensive article written in an international socialist newspaper about the instance, several years after the death, in addition to whatever coverage it had in the local paper at the time of the occurrence. These papers do not indiscriminately cover all people wrongly killed by police...if they did they'd have no room for their other content! Deandre Brunston may not be anywhere near as big a symbol as Rodney King, but he is still a symbol. These two articles alone, in my opinion, make the event meet WP:N even if the person is not notable enough to justify a bio. If you want to delete this page, I can respect that decision even though I'd personally prefer to keep it. But excluding the whole event from mention anywhere on wikipedia...I want to ask...why would you even want to do that? What would be gained? That's an extreme measure that I do not think other editors would support. Cazort (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. لenna vecia 14:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First name has been mispelled in some sources - I'm seeing both Deondre and Deandre. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2003 is still in the transition years of online sourcing but I'm finding materials just fine. I've added a few and done some clean-up work as well as sourcing leads. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for locating these new sources. I noticed that one of them used the spelling "Deondre Brunston". This turned up more detailed coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12], and a mention in [13]. None of these sources overlap with the ones I had initially found, and I think these sources should be considered in the deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I also just found a second article about this event in The Militant, which offers more detailed coverage than the one I had originally found: [14]. Here is another source, again, a left-wing activist source but still a source: [15] Cazort (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? We just added several sources and found 4- more, that would seem to contradict your take on this. -- Banjeboi 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. There are reasons to consider deletion of this article. Sourcing isn't one of them. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2009 (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.