Talk:Patrick Pogan

notable
This person seems notable enough. Ikip (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger/Redirect
This article should have been deleted per WP:SINGLEEVENT guidelines. Merging with the section of an article already devoted to the subject was mentioned: Articles for deletion/Patrick Pogan. Any concerns? If merge is OK, what in particular needs to be added?Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this suggestion is misguided. The fact is that there is not an article on this event. There is a five sentence summary of what happened under a subsubheading of the article Conflicts involving Critical Mass. The event itself does not have an article, despite its obvious notability. Per WP:BLP1E, "if the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." In this case, the event is significant, and no one has a more substantial role than Pogan. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then make an article for the event . This article does not meet guidelines. You left out the majority of the guideline which sets clear standard: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.


 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options."Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may be getting lost in the rules. The reason I left it out the majority of the guideline is that the majority of the guideline is not relevant. The guideline is for "low-profile individuals." The exception is for people with a higher profile. "Low-profile individuals" does not, in my judgment, include criminal defendants in cases being followed by local and national media.


 * It will probably not come as a surprise, but I still think this is a silly proposal. It would probably helpful if you could be a little more specific about which guidelines you feel this article has violated. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Preventing articles from being created for individuals who made news headlines for a single event is exactly why the guideline was implemented. Other editors obviously agree since merger was a popular choice during the deletion discussion. If this incident would have set a precedent in the judicial system maybe it would be noteworthy enough for an article but simply being in several media markets does not satisfy criteria. Other articles of individuals who are more notable have been deleted and in many cases they should have been. It looks like your judgement is being skewed out of your wish to have the article.


 * Here are some cops who dod not have their own article:
 * Johannes Mehserle (BART Shooting article). Like this event, internet video was huge. Unlike this event he killed a guy.
 * Epaminondas Korkoneas (2008 Greek riots) Again, killed a guy but has a simple redirect just like Mehserle.
 * LAPD officers Koon, Powell , Briseno, and Wind (Rodney King article) beat a guy and received much more news coverage than Pogan. Also caused rioting just like the above two Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also see "List of cases of police brutality" which has plenty of officers without their own pages.
 * Follow-up changed discussion from merge/delete to merge/redirect Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick note: separate articles Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell exist; I don't know about the others. Is it possible to write a complete biography of Pogan with the available sources? If not, it may be reasonable to consider a move to a title named for the event/incident. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Good catch (still different level of noteworthiness, though). Is this event noteworthy enough for a complete article or is the newly expanded subsection in the article mentioned above OK? I don't know the standard. Most of the content can easily stay if it is renamed.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

← I propose renaming and refocusing this article around the event/incident as suggested by WP:BLP1E. The event isn't significant enough for two complete articles (one on the event, one on Pogan). Once that is done, we can reconsider a merger to a Critical Mass article. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth trying. Conflicts involving Critical Mass was taken directly from info here and can more than likely be cleaned up to support its own article. After the court case is complete, parts could be condensed since a simple "Pogan was guilty/not of..." should be sufficient with description of the incident and some supporting linesCptnono (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: If someone wants to rename (I honestly don't know what title would be good) and adjust this article to be about the event and not a biography on one of the parties over the next day or so we can try it instead. I don't see it being needed and am leaning towards a simple merge and redirect being best. Discussion has been going on long enough so I am going to redirect it to the above mentioned article as I have mentioned here and is suggested in the previous deletion section if it isn't figured out. This article is in violation of a couple guidelines already and discussion has gone on for a couple weeks without any change.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object. My proposal above was meant as a compromise step; given the lack of discussion, it seems unnecessary. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)