Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 BART Police Shooting


 * 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 Speedy keep. No calls for deletion, negligible chance of reaching that outcome. Maintaining standards is a laudable goal, but little good can come from a deletion nomination of an article that's likely to change too much for a meaningful decision during the time an AfD takes to run its course. --Kiz o r  07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 BART Police Shooting

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Very recent news item - Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. This news item could get legs and be noteworthy in the future, but it isn't now. Delete per WP:NOT Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the San Francisco Bay Area Wikiproject discussion. BoL (Talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Noteworthy?

This case is more than recent news -- it has appeared on KTVU for the last three nights as the lead story -- there should be some documentation of what is happening -- as it stands, now five days from the incident, there is almost nothing on Wikipedia about this story. Wayne shoter (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC) *Merge and redirect for now, or until when the officer makes his statement. BoL (Talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Keep per all of the below. BoL (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to BART News events aren't notable unless they have actual consequences (apart from the shot person dying). Until then it should be covered in the context of BART. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per MGM. The story has some notability, but there just isn't enough about the incident to warrant its own seperate article yet. However I have no opposition, if the story does become bigger, to de-merging. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge--This notable event should be included in Bart.--Jmundo (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. It could be split out if the tragedy turns out to have societal implications, or sets a precedent, like giving policemen Tasers they can distinguish from pistols, or other policy changes or legislation, or if it is the subject of secondary documentation or analysis besides news stories, such as books or TV programs it might turn out to be of historic and encyclopedic importance. See also the policy WP:NOT and its predecessor the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Edison and Jmundo. Edit Centric (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I have tagged Oscar Grant, a one-sentence stub, for AfD as well; if the result of this AfD is to merge, then I think it fair to conclude that Oscar Grant can be deleted and/or redirected to the merged section in BART. (anon, but since I don't like SignBot, or whatever that bot is called...) 140.247.133.184 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge -- Should be in BART, if it has larger ramifications, i.e. Rodney King beating, then give it it's own article. --Fastsince85 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Merge/Redirect. Of course, if this becomes a bigger story, then we can always recreate this article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. A protest is going on tomorrow, and a statement is coming soon. I think based on these we'll be able to judge if the story is notable enough to stand on its own.  Until then, merge to Bart.  (Important note: at first I accidentally typed "Marge to Bart")   Flying  Toaster  03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm having second thoughts because Owen is giving voice to my concerns about this - that it doesn't really fit into the BART article. The problem is that the article is not about BART... it's only the backdrop.  If we use this as precedent, articles about particularly dangerous streets or train stations would have a series of short stories about crimes that took place in them.  A short mention and link to a main article on the BART or Fruitvale stop may suffice.. but for this article I think we should keep or delete the whole thing.  For now I'm recommending keep, and would delete only if the issue fizzles in the next few days.  Judging by the commotion this is causing here in San Francisco, I don't see that happening.   Flying  Toaster  05:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with BART. Not every police shooting merits an article, and this isn't notable enough for an article. --Hojimachongtalk 04:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Incident is significantly distinct from BART, and awkwardly placed there. If it needs to be merged later, that's OK, but in the meantime it's in a place that is easily locatable and allows room for expansion. Owen (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If in doubt, the default should be that the information be included in the main article first (BART) and not having its own article yet. Right now, there is precious little information to put in any article, and the incident has not become noteworthy enough to generate its own article. Now, this may change in the coming days, but we are not a crystal ball and should only keep this merged until there is significant evidence that this deserves its own article. (anon) 140.247.14.85 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has risen to the level of national news, and doesn't really fit within the BART article.  Compare: Rodney King and Amadou Diallo. THF (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But making it to the level of national news does not mean it should become a Wikipedia article. The consequences of this are not yet so notable as to rise to the level of the shootings of King and Diallo; as such, this article should remain merged within BART until there is sufficient evidence to deem it noteworthy of its own article. (anon) 140.247.14.85 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep..... somewhere. Merging to BART doesn't make any sense to me.  I would have merged this material into Oscar Grant per THF's Rodney King and Amadou Diallo precendents above, There's also Jean Charles de Menezes which is comparable.  As it stands right now, both 2009 BART Police Shooting and Oscar Grant redirect to 2009 Fruitvale BART Police Shooting.  Whatever we call the article, this is significant, notable, has long-term implications, belongs in wikipedia, and should not be deleted.  --Lockley (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Please see my above comments; I don't believe this event to be noteworthy enough to merit its own article yet. Being on the national news does not automatically grant inclusion into a Wikipedia article. We can always create a new article if the events following the shooting make the event into something more significant. (anon) 140.247.14.85 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not fit well in BART and seems notable enough for me, at least for now. Tricadex (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Extremely Strong Keep Whether or not this will be notable in the future is debatable, it is notable at this point in time. When such a time comes that it is no longer a notable incident, then you can make the case that it can be deleted.  Doing otherwise is essentially trying to predict the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.167.114 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep That this incident happened on the BART is tangential at best. Suggesting it be merged with Bart is akin to suggesting Michael Jordan's page be merged with Chicago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.183.113 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very Stong Keep This is, and will be, a major, notable, newsworthy event on every major Bay Area media outlet during the month of January 2009 and beyond. Reports of BART police officers attempting to confiscate witness cameras, whether to supress evidence or not, is especially noteworthy and newsworthy, and worthy of inclusion here.  That the officer has yet to make a statement on the incident is also troubling and notable.  From a budgetary standpoint, the possibility of a $25 million dollar civil verdict will have major revenue impacts on the District, it's Board of Directors is already considering cutting night and Sunday service train headways at it's meeting tomorrow morning, ostensibly to save a million dollars a year.  This is not a fare evasion incident, or someone caught with coffee on a train.  Oscar was shot dead in the back on New Years' Eve with many witnesses standing by, how much more notable does it get than that?  This incident deserves its own article with a prominent note on the main BART article.Critical Chris (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Chris, just wanted to acknowledge your great work expanding this article since this discussion started.  --Lockley (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above comments. rkmlai (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per comments above. This isn't your typical police incident anymore than Rodney King was. The difference is that we're catching this one as it develops. This is an important article and resource for others. I can't vote strongly enough to keep this and keep expanding it as it as warranted. burnte (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Critical Chris. The article is much too long to be part of BART. --TIB (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as people above said, this is not a BART matter at all and a merge is inappropriate. Besides, this is an event that has gotten plenty of local TV and national news coverage. Ever since 2003 plenty of similar incidents get Wikipedia articles, and justifiably so. This bogus "This isn't Wikinews" argument is getting old, it never made any sense, and still doesn't. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, high profile incident. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Tonight this story just developed. A protest started closing down the station. It erupted into a riot and police used tactical teams break up violence against the police officers. -- Blackjack48    ♠ t   ♣ c  04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very high profile, widly covered. has sparked violent protests in Oakland. --Falcorian (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N/CA. The nature of the incident, as well as the perputrator (officer) provides that this is not common, and is a noteworthy case. Not only the incident is being paid attention to, but the alleged cover-up and civil unrest/near riots that are a part of this whole situation. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 05:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This incident has already led to violent protests in Oakland and may lead to riots if not handled right. BillyTFried (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (01-07) 21:13 PST Oakland -- A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man mushroomed into a violent confrontation tonight, as a faction of protesters smashed a police car and storefronts, set several cars on fire and blocked streets in downtown Oakland. Police threw tear gas into the group to disperse it... there were numerous arrests..  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN1.DTL&tsp=1
 * Keep I'm in Virginia, and I'm starting to hear about it here. So it's definitely gone national by now. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 06:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is as big as Rodney King. Brand Eks (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mandatory Keep There are now riots in Oakland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.147.88 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.