Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident

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 delete. When all is said in done, the many delete voters have a very strong argument that this is an example of what Wikipedia is not. The incident was sad, but unfortunately this sort of thing is not uncommon. The only effective argument that the keep voters have is the amount of coverage, although much of this is attributable to the 24-hour news cycle. Some arguments in favor of keeping, such as counts of YouTube comments, were completely irrelevant and not given any weight. At best, this is a WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOTNEWS conflict. If the incident leads to national laws and extended protests, if we can look at it in a year and still say it was a big deal, it might be worth trying again. For now, NOTNEWS wins out. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident[edit]

Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. Wikinews exists as a separate project for a reason. There is absolutely no way that this has lasting encyclopedic value. Will it change laws? Will it become a permanent fixture in American jurisprudence? Will it appear in history textbooks? First, we can't know, so WP:CRYSTAL applies. Second...come on, are we kidding here? The police shot a dog. Maybe unjustifiably. Maybe as some sort of revenge. That simply is not a notable event. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: The incident is both Notable with available sources and cover the other Wikipedia criteria. There is a similar incident Puppy-throwing Marine viral video already in Wikipedia with other Animal cruelty incidents. Please refer Google News; the amount of media coverage is more than enough for the inclusion of the incident on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to some coverage of the event that examines more than the event itself (i.e., that places it into a historical context) that was published more than a few weeks after the incident. Also, WP:OSE. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally such coverage should be in a non-news source (i.e., a non--WP:PRIMARY source). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is enough - Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals: Opinion. Why you need in a non-news source? The event has happened only a few days ago to appear in some of the law enforcement or animal rights books and manuals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you've proven my point: the incident happened only a few days ago. Currently, it's news, because some people love to hear news about bad policemen or animal cruelty. Why am I asking for non-news sources? Because until you have some, you have no evidence of lasting notability. In the way news is distributed nowadays, the mere fact that an "interesting" story is covered by hundreds of news publishers does not make the incident notable. As for the source you've provided, that is the opinion of the "Los Angeles News Group opinion staff". It's an opinion article, by someone of so little importance that their name isn't even attached to it. Not even close. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not prophets to predict whether some incident has lasting notability. And the above incident has more than news worthiness since it has created anger for many and dead threats to the police. You have mistaken the opinion of someone which appeared in the dailynews.com to Los Angeles Times. If we could give enough weight to the comments/opinions of Anons on Wikipedia, why it can't be on a newspaper. Please note the Los Angeles Times articles have gone under writers names - Los Angeles Times - 1 By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times - 2 By Kurt Streeter, Los Angeles Times - 3 By Jim Newton. Because of the only reason the incident doesn't have non-news sources currently, doesn't make the incident for an outright deletion on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete If the police officer had bitten the dog it would be notable per Man bites dog. However, in some parts of the world shooting things is simply not notable. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Los Angeles Times's Editorial Board is unaware of the Man bites dog and so stupid when they allow three articles so far - Los Angeles Times - 1, Los Angeles Times - 2, Los Angeles Times - 3 on the incident?HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Thincat, but I would say that the LAT frequently has multiple articles about things even they consider not important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is your WP:OR on LAT.HudsonBreeze (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. However, in this case, I believe the LAT believes it notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may be right in their thinking when another newspaper editorial thinks - Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable in this case; it has created an angry community in large; there are dead threats to the police; even there is an Opinion that Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable in this case; it has created an angry community in large; there are dead threats to the police; even there is an Opinion that Hawthorne police dog shooting shows need for debate on use of force on animals.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - there are hundreds of such incidents every year. Aside from the unusual amount of media attention, I don't see why this one is so notable. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only reason is there are no enough Wikipedians to create articles out of those hundreds of such incidents every year. After I have read an article on a blog that Wikipedia is ungrateful to María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar, I created María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak keep per HudsonBreeze, Mercurywoodrose and Qwyrxian. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although I feel this is one-off event that no one will remember in a week, the backlash to this has been fairly large, and I think it's more than something that would qualify for deletion as WP:NOTNEWS. There may be hundreds of animal shootings like this each year, but they don't generate such a massive, national backlash like this did. --TKK bark ! 17:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll grant that the outrage exploded on this one beyond the usual mediums, but there's no evidence of persistent coverage for the event because, as the nominator notes, this has only just recently occurred. Furthermore, as HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) points out, We are not prophets to predict whether some incident has lasting notability. Well put. So why is this article here if this is the case? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.HudsonBreeze (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but failure to show persistent coverage certainly isn't doing to article any favors. We can also look at the type of coverage in the sources. Much of it consists of first-hand reports of the incident or the video (as an aside, this tone is reflected in the article, and is inappropriate per WP:NOTNEWS). This is exactly the kind of coverage that does not constitute in-depth coverage because the event is not contextualized. News sources now pour over and describe second video released by the police department; it's more of the same. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google News Search Within 24 Hours, there are various newspapers publishing developing stories other than the first-hand reports of the incident or the video.
Please refer ..............However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're essentially citing WP:CRYSTAL, which is more of a reason to delete more than anything else. I'll also contend that the various newspapers you talk about above is a good example of why not to create an article about something written in 109 newspapers. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the hacker group anon has targeted the pd, and a high level of death threats against the pd are ongoing. footage caught on camera of a killing by a police officer, even a dog, is an unusual "man bites dog" event. We cant help it if news stories nowadays get massive coverage, often worldwide, compared to similar stories 60 years ago. as long as there is coverage beyond what would be normal for a police arrest at a crime scene, we need to keep it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not compare the shooting of a human being, with both basic human rights as well as rights granted him by being a resident and citizen of the United States, with the shooting of a dog. A dog. I'm trying to remain calm, but I almost cannot put into words how obscene and offensive a comparison that is. It gets media attention because the US has a morbid fascination with anything that might appear to be "animal cruelty", so long as it's cruelty directed at animals that Americans like. This is still not the sort of substantial, long term coverage required by WP:EVENT. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely WP:NOTNEWS; if I opened the door or left the window open while under arrest to let my dog out I wouldn't be surprised if the police shot it, or me, because that puts them under threat, and how would some random police officers know this guy was suing them? Also really tired of 'Anonymous got involved, so it's notable' articles being put up (and involving stupid things like not checking the White Pages before 'unleashing their forces' on some innocent artist supply store). Please HudsonBreeze, don't bother with throwing another random 'it's notable' link at me like you've done everyone else; I'm not changing my rationale without major sourcing and notability. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When all is said and done it's just one incident, as the title of the article says.Borock (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I give the police officer credit for trying to restain the dog first. That took courage. I know rottweilers. Borock (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After some thought, I agree, it's a dog, and there are likely no policy changes because of this. The Kelly Thomas death generated continuous radio and TV coverage, weekly protests that drew hundreds, and a recall campaign. I don't see any of that here, as the last protests generated a few dozen people. So I will withdraw my support for keeping the article.Calwatch (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Qwyrxian, Nate, Borock, Calwatch
"Just a reminder. The focus here is on the behavior of the police. We don't pile on the dog's guardian for what he or she did or did not do. The issue for this page is whether the police were facing an immediate threat of serious harm with non-lethal options not having worked to reduce the threat sufficiently to allow for escape. A dog being loose is never by itself a legitimate justification for a dog being killed. It really doesn't matter for this analysis whether the dog's guardian us a saint or a serial killer. The issue for this page is whether the law enforcement officer was justified in shooting a dog. It doesn't matter how the dog got loose, only whether the dog was dangerous in a way that could only be addressed by killing the dog. Additionally, there is the issue as to whether the officer shot to disable the dog from being a threat or intentionally shot the dog to death by shooting more than once. On all of these points the Hawthorne police officer was wrong. First, Max was running towards his guardian who happened to be with the police. There is nothing in his demeanor or body language that indicated he was intent on attacking or harming anyone. Second, the officer did not attempt any non-lethal means of dealing with Max, including the obvious one of letting Leon get a hold of Max. Leon was not a danger to anyone and could have been released. The police officer could have backed off rather than approaching. He had multiple options or would have if he had even some very basic training if Max had in fact been attacking him. Finally , he did not shoot once. He shot Max multiple times, in his body, causing immense pain, obvious to all of us, and inflicting horrendous suffering on Leon. Our position is that the days when an officer could shoot a dog with impunity because "it's just a dog" are over. If they are not aware of that and have not adjusted their policies, procedures and training, then they had better get to work or they will be dealing with protests & litigation until they do."


  • Please note there is an online petition campaign - Petitioning The U.S. Senate which is signed by more than 101, 931 supporters at the moment.


  • Please note people are engaged on the issue in every other minute in the following YouTube Threads.
YouTube - 1(5,012,728 Views - 78,843 Comments)
YouTube - 2(1,437,863 Views - 30, 616 Comments)
YouTube - 3(410,999 Views - 9,079 Comments)
YouTube - 4(632, 670 Views - 5,086 Comments)


Please note in the era of Information Super-Highway, we don't want to get into the streets to show our protest. The on-going impact validates it is more than WP:NOTNEWS.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than 100,000 people signed a petition for Piers Morgan to be deported because he called for aggressive gun control laws in the U.S. It's (rightly) not even mentioned in his article. More than 100,000 signed a petition asking the U.S. government to let Texas secede from the Union. 100,000 is trivial. Again, come back in 2 months and show us the sustained coverage of the case. Again, and I cannot stress this enough: we don't have an article on the vast majority of murders. This was not a murder. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian, For a dog(A dog!), more than 101, 931 supporters signed on the petition; is not that an important issue at all? Why we should come back in 2 months and show the sustained coverage; now itself the impact at the YouTube(Please note YouTube is another Social Media like Wikipedia) totaling more than 100, 000 comments validates, keep this article from deletion at Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for once again making my point: Wikipedia is not a Social Media; it's an encyclopedia. Despite your either opinion or confusion, notability is not the same thing as popularity. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: "Please note YouTube is another On-Line Tool like Wikipedia."HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But according to WP:N, Popularity may enhance the acceptability.
Again,
Please refer It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
Please refer ..............However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeated this argument many, many times to the point where it is disruptive. We get it, and you don't need to repeat it to nearly every person who supports deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trust YouTube commenters to make my lunch, much less have a view that makes sense, and a police department's ex-chief has as much pull as your average CNN talking head at this point. As IJ just said, stop hammering your point. We get it. This isn't a forum board where posts float to another page and everything you wrote remains here. Nate • (chatter) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to I, Jethrobot and Nate
Please note, I am not hammering my point, but they are from the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events).HudsonBreeze (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per NOTNEWS. My condolences to people who, like me, love dogs. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and partial merge someplace per WP:PRESERVE of this well sourced and documented case of "possible" police over-reaction. Enough blame to go around. certainly. Had the owner not drawn their attention by being vocal toward police about an event which did not concern him, or afterwards rolled his car windows up high enough, the dog would not have been able to jump out of the car to "protect" its master from a created "perception" of threat. Only the future will tell if this incident has resounding implications. If so, then the article can be recreated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide a rationale as this is not a vote? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:52, 23 July 2013 (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/Hawthorne,_California_dog_shooting_incident&oldid=1080173488"