Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian sterner

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. There is no clear winning argument in notability discussions of this sort, but the substantial majority of opinions are in the the "delete" camp and some of the "keep" opinions ("an exposé of abusive police practices" ... "should be searchable in Wikipedia" ... "a notable person because it was a notable and important event") fail to impress me. While a link to WP:BLP1E isn't very profound either, that guideline is at least something like established consensus, and it looks to be applicable here. That's why I'm not discounting these brief "delete" opinions. — At any rate, the incident is now also covered at List of cases of police brutality, which may be more appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian sterner[edit]

Individual notable for a single event, does not seem to satisfy the broader notability guidelines. Carom (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, absolutely no assertation of notability, so tagged. Just a two sentence news blurb isn't enough at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn dude, you got on this one fast. Less then 2 minutes after I finished the entry, I got an email that this entry was nominated for deletion. There hasn't even been any time to edit and refine this entry.

I started this entry as an example of police brutality, in the interest of including it as part of a larger reference database of examples of police brutality.

According to your arbitrary criteria for entry deletion of "Individual notable for a single event", then the entry for Rodney King should be deleted as well. Because he's an "Individual notable for a single event". In fact, let's take out the entry for Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes booth as well, because both those guys are "Individual notable for a single event".

Why is everyone in such a hurry to delete entries? Less then 2 minutes after I finished this entry, someone wanted to delete it. It takes a little time for interest to pick up, and people to begin beefing up the entry. Geez, relax folks.

I nominate Carom for busybody of the day. --Douglasfgrego (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Also, Doug, please remember to assume good faith. Finally, you should note that your arguement does not hold water. Thin boy 00 @935, i.e. 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Just wanted to add that those people are much more notable than Brian sterner. --Thin boy 00 @938, i.e. 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "example of police brutality" is not enough of a notability assertion IMHO. You may also want to read WP:COI and WP:NPOV for additional issues. Also, I always clog these discussions with comments and need to stop. --Thin boy 00 @948, i.e. 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for one event. Blueboy 96 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have transcluded a populated {{articleissues}} onto the page. --Thin boy 00 @962, i.e. 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being thrown to the ground by the police does not make you notable. Rodney King, with whom the author tries to draw a parallel, is notable for various reasons that the subject here is not, particularly the extensive ramifications of his case and the rioting that the acquitals induced. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously non-notable, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS to the extreme.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable subjects are Simpsons and Futurama, the editors dont like things that happen in the news that are major events. Major events are not notable enough for them. Write it in a comic book, then you can re-add the article. (Yes, Im being sarcastic but this notable deletion is an abuse that happens way too much on wikipedia...)IronWolve 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A quick search indicates that this person and incident is massively notable. WP:BLP1E only applies when there is a separate article on the 1 event and it doesn't seem that there is. And, in any case, there seems to be more to say about this person, such as this news item . The article has only just been created in the face of outrageous obstruction (the creator has now been banned for daring to talk back) and should be given time to be properly edited. If appropriate, the article can be renamed and focussed around the incident rather than the person but his name seems to be the best search term for this currently. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:BLP1E doesn't state that there has to be a separate article for the event, it only states to merge that bio info with the event's article if there is a separate article. If the event is noteworthy enough, it should have an article, if it isn't that's just further reason for the biographical article to be deleted. -- Atama ^chat 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to police brutality. Yes there are alot of news stories out about him right now, but not every front page headline automatically makes an individual notable. If anything, the incident might be notable on its own, but Sterner is not. AniMate 23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as stated above or Delete. Notability is not temporary - while he may be in the news now, he won't be next week. The article establishes no notability beyond the event. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. No redirect or merge. There is no reason to rush to include this material now; if someone wants to add it a year or so after the incident, we will be able to assess its notability with a clearer perspective. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but speedy unnecessary because the problem is notability vis-a-vis NOT NEWS, not that it's obviously unimportant). I see no indication from the article, discussion, or google that the person is notable in his own right. If the content is worthwhile it can be added somewhere else but there are so many thousands of incidents of abuse of inmates in jails and prisons, it's hard to imagine that adding yet one more is a big deal. Wikidemo (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when an ordinary person has an event that is picked up by news media as being particularly representative or iconic, then that person becomes a public figure, and if the coverage is sufficient, then it is notable. Given that bbc has picked it up, international coverage demonstrates notability. I think this is the best rule for distinguishing. We should probably reword NOT NEWS to make the obvious even clearer. DGG (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge as per AniMate above. This appears to be a developing news story which should be searchable in Wikipedia. The Bearded One (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS do not privide a blanket reason for deleting articles on events like this. WP:BLP1E is clear that it is about having articles on people separate from articles on the event itself, so it could be used as a reason for renaming this article, but not deleting it. WP:NOT#NEWS says "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the sources are obviously substantial here, including reports from Canada, India, Scotland and Australia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above. Gary King (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject also seems to be notable as a sportsman competing at the top level of amateur sport. I've put the ref in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen this incident in the news, but "newsworthy" is not automatically "notable". Rodney King incident had far more reaching consequences, so the comparison does not hold. GregorB (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. No hints of lasting notability here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.He's a notable person because it was a notable and important event: perhaps the first most widely reported example of police brutality against a disabled person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.170.150 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just thought to search Wikinews and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding article there. I don't understand why we have such strong barriers between the sort of article we have in Wikipedia and the related articles in the sister projects like News/Dictionary/Source/whatever. Isn't there some way to just tag something as news or whatever and have it migrate or be categorised automatically? Why do we have to have all these dramatic turf battles over technical details? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I think this does fall under WP:BIO1E, but the somewhat extensive coverage that this has gotten makes me a bit wishy-washy. I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that this guy will be forgotten next week, but it's probably a safe bet. If this article isn't deleted from this AfD, it should certainly be reexamined in a few months and if he has dropped off the radar as many people predict it should definitely be brought up for another AfD. -- Atama ^chat 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. The significance of this incident as an exposé of abusive police practices against the disabled has only started to be more fully appreciated. To get an idea of the ramifications involved here, see Wheelchair Dumping - Disabled Have No Rights with Cops. Like Rodney King, Brian Sterner had no way of knowing he would find himself at the centre of a major controversy about police practices, but that is what has happened, and regardless how other elements play out, his role in the ensuing legal arguments and debate about practices is proving to be a very important one. Sterner was recently quoted, saying: "Do I believe people with disabilities have been getting the shaft for a long time? Yeah. Do I want to do something about it? Yes. Absolutely." With or without Wikipedia, Sterner's name will continue to be notable and significant. I can't imagine deleting this without seriously damaging Wikipedia's credibility.--BuffaloBilly (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E Will ^(talk) 16:49, 22 February 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.