Talk:Sagon Penn

Notability concerns
So I think the big concern here is the gap in explanation as to why this subject was acquitted and why this community review board was established. If the board was established because of police misconduct towards Penn, then the subject is notable in my opinion. However, if the board was established because of sloppy police work that led to the acquittal then it is more likely that the shooting itself is notable, but not the subject and as such should be tweaked and renamed to Shooting death of Thomas Riggs or something similar. Courtesy ping of who put up the notability tag. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The source says "After a controversial police shooting, the Mayor and City Council established and appointed citizens to a Citizens' Advisory Board to review the Police Department's Use of Force Policy" but it doesn't actually specify that it was the shooting of Thomas Riggs. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , Yeah that's a bit problematic as well. If that can't be concretely established than this fails any form of notability guidelines. I'm not going to pull the trigger on an AfD, but I wouldn't stand in the way of it either. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to Theroadislong and Sulfurboy,

Gap in explanation closed. Misconduct in this case has already long been been established with the acquittals some 35 years ago. How do you think he got acquitted after killing the officer? It has already been established that Penn was beaten by officer Riggs.

Whomever is claiming failed verification in the article needs to read the following oh so reliable sources below lets see if this source gets mysteriously deleted. I doubt it.

http://www.sdpolicemuseum.com/Sagon-Penn.html Here is the quote verbatim

″Penn's two trials focused attention on the uneasy relationship between San Diego police and minority residents.To cool the tensions, the City Council appointed a citizens advisory task force on police community relations. From the task force, and a series of eight public forums held throughout the city, came a recommendation for the city's first citizens police review board″″″. Still not convinced? Please remove the failed citation I will wait......Spiritletters (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Respectfully submitted


 * Courtesty ping to, since they are a new user and might not know to monitor the talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to Sulfurboy,

Gap in explanation closed. Misconduct in this case has already long been been established with the acquittals some 35 years ago. How do you think he got acquitted after killing the officer? It has already been established that Penn was beaten by officer Riggs.

Whomever is claiming failed verification in the article needs to read the following oh so reliable sources below lets see if this source gets mysteriously deleted. I doubt it.

http://www.sdpolicemuseum.com/Sagon-Penn.html Here is the quote verbatim

″Penn's two trials focused attention on the uneasy relationship between San Diego police and minority residents.To cool the tensions, the City Council appointed a citizens advisory task force on police community relations. From the task force, and a series of eight public forums held throughout the city, came a recommendation for the city's first citizens police review board″″″. Still not convinced? Please remove the failed citation I will wait......Spiritletters (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Respectfully submitted

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I did the curation / new article review on the article. Nice work! I had to take a good look at notability guidelines and the references for this article for this one. Most likely there should be an article on the event     rather than on him. The references are really only about the event and him in the event. You may wish to consider transitioning this to an article about the event and aftermath. But I'm marking this as reviewed, happy editing!.

North8000 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW I reviewed & wrote this prior to noticing the talk page discussion so my apologies wherever they are needed. . Now having read it, I think that it reinforces that the article should be renamed for the incident rather than the individual. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)