Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna


 * 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.

When considering how to close the AFD, there are always great number of policies at play. This one seems to have more than most. Several of our fundamental guidelines and policies have been cited in this discussion: WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), WP:BLP1E, WP:Biographies of living people, a variation of WP:ROUTINE, and more. Other pages that have been cited, which are not policies or guidelines but nonetheless have historically been taken into account at AFD, include WP:COATRACK and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's clear that any close is not going to satisfy everyone, so I'll do my best to explain my reasoning here as best I can. If you disagree with me or wish for me to clarify something, you are welcome to come by my my talk page before heading off to AFD review. One of the principle implications of WP:NOTPAPER is that we have far more space to go into depth on the coverage of major events than other encyclopedias. While other encyclopedias might be limited to just writing about William B. Travis and the other main figures at the Battle of the Alamo, we can write about those and still have plenty of space to write full length articles about "To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World", the "Coward of the Alamo", and Juana Navarro Alsbury. However, we must be careful that in doing so, we do not violate any of the fundamental ethical principles our project has worked with for the past several years. I am thinking in particular of the final paragraph of the biographies of living persons policy. Those arguing to keep the article have argued a number of things. Let me try to summarize the valid ones as best I can: (1) that BLP1E does not apply because the subject is covered in reliable sources pre-Occupy Wall Street ("Multiple sources covering several events in this policeman's life, easily satisfy GNG"); (2) That WP:WELLKNOWN allows us to have this article; (3) that there are a great number (17 was a figure cited) of reliable sources that address the matter; (4) that BLP1E does not apply because Bologna was involved in a significant way in a significant role. Those arguing to delete the article have largely relied on BLP1E in some form. They might be best summarized by this post: "The 2005 Downtown Express and 2010 DNAinfo.com fluff pieces amount to insignificant coverage in unreliable sources. The 2010 Daily News piece contains only trivial mention. The rest is just coverage of one event or non-notable dirt dug up in response to that event. His order to arrest some guy in 2004 doesn't come close to being a notable event. The coatracking seems to have been mostly addressed, but BLP1E still mandates deletion." There was also another matter that was brought up in at least one location, which was not really refuted by anyone: "where is best for this information to be presented? At the moment, the actual notable information (as opposed to the fluff that is bolstering it) is present in the main article". One of the not-so-fun roles of closing an AfD discussion is evaluating which side has the stronger argument without verging into the "supervoter" category. In this particular case, it appears to me that the latter group has the stronger argument. The argument that the pre-OWS coverage is so minor and routine that we shouldn't take it into account is a strong one, and one I think that wasn't adequately refuted. If that is established, then BLP1E argument easily wins the day. Therefore, I am going to close this AfD as delete and redirect.. NW ( Talk ) 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article exists to name and shame a BLP2E police officer, against whom there is much public anger currently. Subject is not independently notable. No need to merge, relevant content is already in Occupy Wall Street article LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - article has clearly been created to attack a living person. Although some additional fluff has been added to create the appearance of a notable biography - its all about the pepper spray one event. The person is a basic one event notable at the moment only and at the most is a section of a small para on the main event. Lots of COI editing in this area at present as is to be expected. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: WP:BLP2E? Interesting nomination...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, it's just a typo.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually on purpose (in response to criticism that Bologna was a BLP1E, it was pointed out that there were accusations of excessive force another time before. OK, fine, BLP2E. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of cute, but usually better to avoid humor in nominations - I've discovered that the AfD process is often a contentious one. But as long as we're having fun (are we having fun?), I would call it a BLP-one-and-a-half-E, at most.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If WP wasn't fun, would any of us be here? But seriously, WP can be incredibly un-fun, especially when the article you worked so hard on gets deleted, so agreed, no more humor. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think BLP1E is accurate. That's what I first described it as.  The previous incident isn't something he was notable for (it didn't receive ANY media attention until this incident. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you explain this: media attention before this incident?  Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Todd, I just finished reading that article myself looking for ANYTHING of value I could add to the Anthony Bologna article (playing Devil's Advocate) and was frustrated. It's a neighborhood coverage human interest story that didn't even give the name of his spouse (which, at least, I could have added to the infobox). His service in the Coast Guard Reserve was useless, since I have no idea if its current. It wasn't even "news", never mind encyclopedic. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to review the basics of WP:GNG, then the subtleties of WP:BIO. It's not about how useful the coverage is to editors on Wikipedia. Was there a circulation criteria for sources in WP:BLP2E?  I might have missed that. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "How useful the coverage is to editors on Wikipedia" is EVERYTHING. Nothing to include in the article beyond his pepper spraying = no article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop fabricating policy. There isn't a single instance of policy relating to WP:GNG, WP:BIO (or even things you make up like WP:BLP2E) that refers to usefulness.  Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is nothing of value from source material to add as content to the article beyond his pepper-spraying I just can't make stuff up. And without anything beyond his pepper-spraying as content there shouldn't be an article, it can be contained in the main OWS article. At least I made a GF effort to find stuff to add. It's not possible, try for yourself. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - I struck/retracted my comments as after thought I don't want to stand by them, sorry about that. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LoveUxoxo -- the article does lay out a clear account of his career trajectory in the NYPD...AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referencing the previous incident of his alleged civil rights abuses. That article is a fluff story. Every local newspaper does them, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article about every single mom the local newspaper covers when they're bored.  It's pretty much pure coincidence that Bologna has other articles about him in addition to the recent ones, but that doesn't make him notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article fails WP:BLP1E. To the extent Bologna's pepper spraying, after adjudication, constituted quasi-criminal conduct, the article also fails WP:CRIME. His rank of deputy inspector does not make him inherently notable. It's unclear how many deputy inspectors there are in the NYPD (I tried to figure that out), but there are certainly many. Finally, the civil rights lawsuit is not notable. Many, many federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against the police all the time, and this one hasn't yet even been decided in the courts, so it's simply an allegation. Also, it's not clear what other civil rights besides false arrest are involved - the cited article isn't very clear. Finally, although it happened at the time of the convention, it wasn't really related to the convention protests ("His arrest was not directly related to the protest against the Republican convention, but was at a time of heightened tension in New York.").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — The article is about an individual who is notable in his role in several distinct events. Bologna's involvement has been every time a well-documented historic event. If User:LoveUxoxo has reasons to believe that the article has contentious material about Bologna that is unsourced or poorly sourced, that specific content should be removed. Otherwise, the article meets the WP:BLP guidelines. Merging with Occupy Wall Street is not appropriate, because Bologna is not "notable only for one event" as per WP:BLP1E. Other allegations by User:LoveUxoxo that the editors of the article intended "to shame a police officer" are not supported by any evidence that would amount to a violation of WP:COI. If, however, User:LoveUxoxo claims that a particular editor is "advancing outside interests", a proper resolution is to deal directly with a suspected conflicted editor as per WP:COI. In addition, the article meets the Notability test as per WP:SIGCOV: Bologna has received "significant coverage" in verifiable multiple sources that are independent. The cited sources address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. Disclosure: I am not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street or any other political movement. --Fayerman (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I don't think any editor's behavior on this issue is wrong, and I believe that everyone has been acting in good faith. I came to the article originally by googling "Anthony Bologna", and saw the page and reacting (seriously) with horror. It's blatantly obvious for what it is, regardless of the intentions of the editors involved. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply — In that case, your assertion stated in the AfD nomination, that the "article exists to name and shame", is groundless opinion. Please refrain from arguments that do not explain how the article violates a particular policy. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply -- Regardless of the noble motivations of the editors involved (NOT sarcasm), the article is what it is. A name and shame BLP1E content fork that should be covered in the main article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete History of the article and such edits as show this article as a POV-magnet, plain and simple. Just about every senior police official manages to get listed for getting promoted, but that is not, IMO, sufficient to make every senior police official notable for a Wikipedia article. In fact - this article did not exist until 28 Sept 2011 -- and  shows the rationale for the article ab initio. Allegations that he is "internationally famous" do not appear substantiated. In fact, it is clear that absent the pepper spray allegations, he would never have a WP article belies that claim instantly. Wikipedia is ill-suited for deliberate use of a BLP to promote a POV, and that appears to be the only rationale for this article. All salient material looks like it will be merged (per the AfD on the article to which the BLP was renamed) and that should be quie sufficient reason to delete this as now a "POV fork." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There is plenty of news coverage, but only because of his temporary newsworthiness, not encyclopedic notability. This article exists to denigrate the subject and as a coatrack for certain political activity.  Peacock (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The purpose of this article is not to "name and shame" someone, but to fulfill our curiosity, same as any.  This pepper spraying incident is so peculiar because, whatever the critics say, he had no reluctance to do it right out in front of the cameras, and there's no strong reason to think the NYPD is going to call his behavior inappropriate.  That gets us interested in what kind of job he holds, who he answers to, what the policies are, what his history was with the other protests, what grudges people hold against him that might taint their version of events, etc. etc., leading, as a river leads to the sea, to the general desire for a full and fair biographical article about the person.  And I think I've done a fair amount to balance it out.  There's lots more information out there about him.  For the record I think other Deputy Inspectors in the NYPD should be covered here, for example Roy T. Richter mentioned in this article as head of a police union.  I think if you Google him you find lots of fairly good sources worthy of making a biography also.  I would ask whether people here want a ban on every Deputy Inspector, or only those receiving negative publicity which is all over the headline news?  My position is simple: cover the WP:WELLKNOWN facts. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - Please don't post your personal interpretation of his feelings/reasons he did something - or your personal opinion about the NYPD either - it would be better id you redact it. I know you don't support WP:BLP but please don't violate it here. We are not here to answer peoples in the moment interest - we write articles about correctly notable people - not because they are in the press at the moment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't posted any "personal interpretation of his feelings", except to say he knew he was being filmed, which has been remarked elsewhere anyway. In the second videotape that came out he pepper sprayed right across a camera's field of view.  We have a right to ask these questions about historical events and try to understand how people are thinking.  Your interpretation of "BLP" is an inquiry so circumscribed that most of the time you can't cover recent events.  Wikipedia deserves better. Wnt (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "We have a right to ask these questions about historical events and try to understand how people are thinking" Very true, however this is not the appropriate place for such research and analysis of current events. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What policy says Wikipedia has to be out of date? That we have to wait to write about what happened until most of the sources have become difficult to find?  That we can't be useful now, when the history is happening, rather than only after the fact? Wnt (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources will be difficult to find? This just happened. You just want to report it like a newspaper would. See WP:NOTNEWS. See also WP:NOT ("In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."). Per your words, you apparently want Wikipedia to be useful in a political way:"And in compiling the information we give people, in this case the people of New York, the power to understand how their police department operates, what difference individual people in it make, whether they like it or hate it. Which is what Wikipedia is for - giving people the knowledge they need to understand and have a say in the world they live in."


 * --Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. I also support having an article United States presidential election, 2012, and thorough articles for each of the candidates.  There's nothing wrong with us informing people about politics in accordance with our policies. Wnt (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6 attractive young women screaming on camera after being maced in the face isn't really "history" on par with Norman Morrison. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor is it, say, Port_Militarization_Resistance or other protests from a few years ago in which police were spraying or dripping pepper spray directly into protesters' eyes. Unlike the impression given by some of the activists, I'm all too aware that Bologna's reaction was actually quite restrained compared to some of the things done not long ago.  I imagine if we had all the background to this case - say, what was accepted by the entire police force during the 1982 Crown Heights Riots which Bologna was present for - we might come to understand better why he did this now.  I don't know if we'll ever get to that point but we certainly won't if we don't take the first step. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no BLP2E policy. 17 independent, reliable sources are already provided, and there are at least two times that available if you simply do a Google News search. The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything which isn't a puff piece about someone. When there are a large number of reliable sources which give the subject significant coverage, there is no policy-based reason to delete. For a relevant example of an individual notable for one major event which continually is deemed notable, see Anna Svidersky. Or the many, many articles we have about convicted serial killers. (And yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF. Examples help, and that's not the argument I'm making.) Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What a load of promotion Walling - get real - this article has clearly been created just now - it was created to attack the subject. Before the protesters wanted to attack him he was not a bit notable. You then say, see all the serial killers articles - what for? they have nothing to do with this article at all -Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to this argument about motive. Article creation occurs in accordance with the law of mass action, at a rate which is directly proportional to the number of Wikipedia editors and the number of publications reaching them about the topic of the article.  When something is top news and a quarter of the editors on Wikipedia see it mentioned before lunch, an article will be created.  There's no POV in that.  Now I don't deny that underlying emotional reaction increases the chance an editor will take interest, but it's a smaller effect and IMHO seems to vary between editors. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Svidersky article is even close to being comparable to the Bologna article. That aside, how do you apply WP:BLP1E? Is the number of sources dispositive? I'm curious. And on a more susbtantive note, why isn't inclusion of some of this material in the Occupy Wall Street article sufficient? Just to talk about Bologna's background and the 2007 civil rights suit? There's nothing notable here that can't be merged into the Occupy article. And the so-called BLP2E "policy" has already been addressed above, so it wasn't even worth mentioning - again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- WP:OTHERSTUFF is so stupid, I hate it. And I think Anna Svidersky is a good example of why an article on Bologna would be bad. All the content in that article deserves two concise paragraphs in the Missing White Woman Syndrome article, at most. How can anyone read that lede and not cringe is beyond me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there's tons of material about the subject and not about Occupy Wall Street. Just read the New York Times articles and the other dozen-plus sources which are about Anthony Bologna and not about the continuing protests. The story became about him, and that kind of coverage from reliable sources justifies an article. That's how Wikipedia works, we bring together material from other reliable sources based on what they cover. You can't ignore the amount of coverage Bologna has been given, since it's our core measuring stick for what to include and what not to. It doesn't matter how many times you badger everyone who's in favor of keeping this -- the sources don't disappear. Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The badgering comment is beneath you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Svidersky article is more of a commentary on mass media, in particular the Internet, and mass hysteria/grief than it is on a murder. It's hard to delete an article where the media likens the worldwide reaction to Svidersky's murder to the worldwide reaction to the death of Diana.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can argue around the examples I gave, but they're a tertiary issue. The policies I'm citing here are verifiability and the general notability guideline. Plain and simple. Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The 2005 and 2010 references represent substantial coverage in independent reliable sources prior to the Occupy Wallstreet incident. The subject already satisfied WP:GNG before the event which brought him so much attention. Pburka (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, no it does not. Truthsort (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps we're looking at different articles? I was referring to and . Yes, it's local media, but it's local media in a city of 12 million people. If you review the guidelines at WP:Notability you'll find that this coverage qualifies as significant, independent and reliable. I stand by my position that if an article about Anthony Bologna had been brought to AfD a month ago it would have been kept. Pburka (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow, you really believe those two sources makes this qualify as "significant" coverage? Unbelievable... Truthsort (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, actually, Pburka convinced me (see below). However I have chosen to ignore that part of the policy, which is unrealistically rigid. Not everyone may agree. I don't have any motivation to "fabricate" policy however. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please review the definition of 'significant coverage' at WP:NOTABILITY. You may not like it, but those articles match the definition perfectly. Bologna satisfies the general notability guidelines for presumed notability. In order to make a compelling argument for deletion you need to show that the article violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Those two articles are fluff pieces. They are not news. Almost every high ranking officer gets stories written about them in their local papers/ websites when they retire or are hired to another force. That doesn't make them notable enough for Wikipedia, which is read around the world. yonnie (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having been a veteran of many AfDs it is, in my experience, quite unusual to find two articles like these specifically about the subject. There are usually lots of passing references, but to find two independent profiles in newspapers (even local papers) 5 years apart is exceptional. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:Notability also states that there needs to be multiple sources for a subject to be notable. I highly doubt that two sources, both of which Yonskii points out are local sources on his hiring and retirement, really make me think that this man was notable before this incident. Truthsort (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Back in my day, two was considered multiple, especially when they're years apart. You can WP:Ignore all rules, but please at least acknowledge that you're doing so. The subject clearly meets the minimum guidelines for presumed notability. Pburka (talk)

— 98.234.236.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Even the other "notable" incident involving him is only being brought up in the aftermath of the Wall Street Protest, so as far as I'm concerned, this is still a WP:BLP1E issue. There is no significant coverage before this incident that would suggest that he was notable before. Simply cherry picking a couple of local sources back in 2005 and 2010 (one of which is apparently just a text file) does not constitute "significant coverage". Truthsort (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I came to look him up and was glad to find the article. Had there not been prior (to the wall street macing indecent) coverage of him in WP:RSs or he had not been involved in such a notable indecent there would be case for deletion. As it is this article is a useful source of information and I see little disadvantage in it's retention.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep.Obviously a newsworthy individual. The point of Wikipedia is so people can find out what the fuss is about. If the facts are wrong, fix the facts.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.236.56 (talk)
 * Keep. Multiple articles spanning several years satisfy the baseline notability criterion.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete clear violation of BLP, and I'm surprised this is controversial. The overall event at the demonstration is notable; his individual role is not. The other negative material is a charge, not a conviction. The minor positive material is not sufficient for notability, not representing significant coverage.I see this as a clear violation of DO NO HARM. (that phrase does strike me as a little ironic in this particular case, but I support NPOV regardless of my own opinions.)   DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. The only truly notable news stories that have been about the officer have been about the OWS protests.  Yes, those mention past incidents with the officer; howerver, the officer is only known for the OWS protests. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - We may wish he didn't have coverage before the event, but he did, and this isn't an IAR situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Speedy F-ing Obvious Keep: This guy has been in the news for over more than half a decade: BLP1E does not apply. BLP2E (the basis of this nom) does not exist.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you ask or this AFD is closed as a speedy keep on a technicality as you are supporting I will re nominate. Also if you and multiple users vote in regard to a faulty nomination I will also renominate after closure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not a speedy keep. It's a BLP, so we need to proceed with the utmost care, as with all BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Speedy keep is a deletion guideline with five reasons listed. I think this !vote needs to be clarified.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Nom reasoning is fallacious. Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I only see notability for one event here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you discount the sources from the mid 2000s? Did you see them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources (Downtown Express, DNAinfo) do not describe a notable person, just a patrolman who rose through the ranks to middle-management. The incident regarding an alleged false arrest generated no media attention at the time, it was not an "event". Bologna is an example of the banality of a not-having-a-very-good-day law enforcement officer. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The very fact that those sources exist means that he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. WP:Notability, in the Wikipedia sense, isn't how we feel about an article. It's a clearly defined policy. Notability is presumed if there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. These articles are substantial (they're not passing references) and the sources are reliable and independent. Therefore he is presumed to be notable. Pburka (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy uses the subjective term "significant coverage", and I think being mentioned (prior to his pepper-spraying) twice in his lifetime, in 2 neighborhood newspapers (of which no one, unless you live in Manhattan, would have ever heard about before) falls far short of "significant". LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (I retract this comment on WP:Notability based Pburka's comments directly below) LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not subjective; it's clearly defined: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. These articles are certainly not trivial mentions and the subject is the main topic of the source material. They clearly each satisfy the objective standards for significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are convincing me that according to the letter of that policy you are right. And I'm also convinced that phrasing that policy that way is the stupidest thing I've seen the Raiders punted on 4 and 3 earlier today. According to that policy, this article http://www.dnainfo.com/20110930/chelsea-hells-kitchen/hells-kitchen-gay-bar-might-close-during-school-hours gives inherent notability to some random bar. Common sense, better than any policy every formulated on WP, tells us that is not true. Fortunately no most policies on WP are are not binding, and and that badly-written one has an escape clause that the finding of notability is presumptive, not a guarantee. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pburka, you are ignoring the fifth bullet point of WP:GNG, which states ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Like LoveUxoxo said, he fits significant coverage according to the letter of the policy, but to me, it seems clear that the notability guidelines were not intended to mean that every cop who has a few fluff stories about his promotions or leaving the area deserves an article. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our rules are a bit funky. Still, most murderers, lottery winners, etc. don't happen to have articles about them in years past.  That's how we avoid having articles about them, and may end up having an article about this fellow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a government official who has gotten international press for his personal role in multiple notable events, and who serves in a fairly high rank in a (the?) major city of the US. We must by all means observe the rules with respect to biographies of living persons and neutral POV. But that doesn't mean we must suppress every unpleasant fact. TypoBoy (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear violation of BLP as regarding one event-notability and in general the whole "presumption in favor of privacy" section. Helixdq (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Bologna's actions may represent a significant element in the ongoing Occupy Wall Street narrative. Indeed, the press coverage and commentary it has generated, in contrast to the virtual media blackout which preceded it, is itself noteworthy. — G5187 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may certainly be right, but yours is an argument for merging this article, not keeping it.Jarhed (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ditto above, plus (as the sources show) he has been in the news before this incident. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Topic has news precedent in a reliable source in 2005 (?), and additional news coverage in reliable sources in 2011: , and . Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, one source back in 2005 does not make him notable before this incident, and obviously the one event coverage does not make him notable either. Truthsort (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons mentioned above by G5187. Oclupak (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of anything, there is no mention of the officer definitely being guilty. The facts remain the same, everything is under investigation...No reason for this to be deleted. If Bologna is found guilty I hope he faces time in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.124.138 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)  — 24.90.124.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep For the reasons mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.82.115 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)  — 99.61.82.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Anything notable that could be said about him is already in Occupy Wall Street. One minor event that nobody remembers back in 2005 DOES NOT MAKE HIM NOTABLE ENOUGH FOR A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE SIX YEARS LATER just because he was involved in something that happened recently. Most of these "keeps" seem to be emotional responses, devoid of any logic, and reek of POV. yonnie (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons User:Fayerman stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.21 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — 152.2.240.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment A significant number of "Keep" !votes are coming from editors with exceedingly few edits overall. I suggest any closing admin take such !votes into account as having marginal weight at best, and the lack of reasons for such !votes be used to lower the weight still further.  Say - slightly below the weight of a helium balloon.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I suppose we might also consider editors who have received an excessive number of complaints and an excessive number of citations for edit warring, and weight their votes accordingly. See User talk:Collect, for example. PromiseOfNY (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certain that you do not want to play this game. Collect is a well-known editor on BLP issues. The majority of your contributions, on the other hand, look suspiciously like COI. In any case, it is reasonable to suspect that many editor contributions on a social protest article are going to be protesters.Jarhed (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one playing games. My point, and I admit I could have made it more clearly, is that editors should not be disparaging other editors or trying to make their votes count for less based on improper accusations of bad faith.  Judge not, lest ye be judged.  That's all. - PromiseOfNY (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Please also take our point that it may sometimes be reasonable to consider the COI implications of a single-use account. I trust the closing administrator's judgement in this matter.Jarhed (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to draw editors to this BLP discussion shows that you have a COI agenda that is harmful to improving this article. In my opinion, your COI problem is acute enough that you cannot contribute positively to this article and you should not be editing here.Jarhed (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - BLP1E if I have ever seen such. All claims otherwise are specious, or the subject would have already had an article before his notable event. Also, consider that this is a controversial event, a political protest. Protesters by definition have an agenda to push. BLP should not be overridden because of the controversy. Because of the controversy, I also agree that contributors should be scrutinized for one-use accounts and weighed accordingly.Jarhed (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your claim that he wasn't notable before, since otherwise "the subject would have already had an article" is fallacious. Essentially you're claiming that Wikipedia is complete and that everything notable has already been written about. If this is the case I guess we can all go home. Pburka (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, please provide a pointer to the BLP of any other precinct commander for the NYPD, past or present, even one that was involved in a notable event. My own search turned up exactly one, an incident article, and the precinct commander was not named. Thus, despite your overwrought contention, NYPD precinct commanders are *not* inherently notable as per WP notability standards. This person is only notable for his BLP1E, hence my original, correct, assertion.Jarhed (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't say NYPD precinct commanders are inherently notable. I questioned your circular assertion that notability requires the preexistence of a Wikipedia article. This subject is notable because he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the article isn't any of the things which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Those are Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Pburka (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the policy lecture. While my logic may have been circular, I meant only to point out that the subject was obviously non-notable until this notable incident. You on the other hand extrapolate the extensive coverage of this single event into non-BLP1E notability. We both agree that the subject has received notable RS coverage for this single event.Jarhed (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete or redirect Merge to Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department   Topic, as per WP:N, is a "low-profile individual"; too much of the material is non-encyclopedic; and the issues have more to do with the NYPD than with the individual.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading Occupy Wall Street shows encyclopedic material, and that the NYPD accepts responsibility for the actions of its officers in this incident.  Notability is not inherited from the NYPD to Officer Bologna.  I am changing my !vote above from Merge, to Delete or Redirect, and closing admin should consider both a destructive redirect and a non-destructive redirect.  BTW, I added a See also link at Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department to Occupy Wall Street.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that your contribution to this discussion is highly constructive, and I agree with a merge and/or link as appropriate with the allegations article.Jarhed (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - subject was obviously notable before this incident, and is especially so currently. We aren't a crystal ball and can't assume everything is going to blow over and return to business as usual, but if and when it does, then this article may become less notable in future years than it is now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It has been documented numerous times that he was not notable before this, but I would simply like to tell you regarding your "this article may become less notable in future years than it is now" comment, notability is not temporary. Truthsort (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we don't know it's going to be 'temporary' because we can't know the future. It could prove more enduring for all we know. In my view he was already notable beforehand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your idle speculation about notability is more critical than you seem to realize. If the subject is only newsworthy not notable, then he will suffer personal harm while his BLP is online. I would appreciate some indicator that you understand this as an issue, and that your idle speculation does not outweigh BLP concerns.Jarhed (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is my comment so critical? I don't understand what you need me to indicate or why you need it. Just move on. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Above you argue that we should keep this article because it might be noteworthy in the future. You don't appear to be aware of the BLP issue of having a BLP for a non-notable person. Notability is a critical issue for a BLP, and that is especially true for someone involved in a controversial event. This BLP could harm this person, and keeping it because of some speculated future value is a poor argument.Jarhed (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't speculate that it might gain any future notability. I stated that it already has notability now, and that we can't speculate that it might lose notability. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speculation about future notability is the essence of newsworthiness. This article is obviously newsworthy. The question is, will it endure in the future as an encyclopedic article. Your argument is that we should keep it merely because it might evolve to be so, and I have explained at length that such is a poor argument. BLP trumps your idle speculation about future encyclopedic value, which I judge at zero. After this incident is out of the news, nobody will care about this mid-level city functionary except for his BLP1E event.Jarhed (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "After this incident is out of the news"... That's precisely what we cannot be a crystal ball and predict at this point... That everything is all suddenly go back to 'business as usual' being the order of the day. That's what I've been saying all along... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "crystal ball" guess is yours, your notion that this individual has any other notability beyond his BLP1E. You have presented no evidence to the contrary. That being the case, the article should be deleted as BLP1E.Jarhed (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

by the nominator. Even before the paragraph was changed, it violated WP:AFDFORMAT, because nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion; nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate line. Proposing to either (1) restore or (2) remove the above paragraph (along with my comment) with whatever steps that may be deemed necessary for preventing further disruption of the discussion. Please also note that the nominator was given a friendly warning for badgering (below). Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: In my opinion the article is biased toward Bologna.  There is an "effort" to be objective but most anyone can see through it.  Anyone can claim that videotape was edited or that cameras were not turned on until a certain point in time.  However, to be viewed as credible there needs to be evidence to support those contentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.180.66 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fayerman, I had nothing to do with the above, why do you think that? LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I saw it I just assumed it was some anon edit and was going to move it down in the discussion into proper order but didn't have time :( LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph mentioned was added by User:64.85.180.66 on 20:22, 3 October 2011 (it also took out the header and the AfD template). I moved it down together with the replies, and added unsigned — frankie (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, the pro-Bologna bias is not relevant to AfD, it's an article editing issue. A few days ago it was rather anti-Bologna, when Off2riorob (one of the people voting delete above) removed a bunch of stuff.  I'll likely put some of it back in again pretty soon.  We shouldn't have another rationale for deletion with every twist of the wind. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Go on then, edit an article instead of blabbing on the talkpage. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete While there are technically news articles covering him for more than one event, this sort of case seems to be in the spirit of the WP:BLP1E guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The officer is notable and sourced by many different independent news sources for different events. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to Occupy Wall Street pepper-spray incidents. Much to my dismay, Anthony Bologna fails WP:BLP1E (really BLP2E) and WP:CRIME. But the incident itself is absolutely notable. It's been getting almost as much press coverage as the rest of Occupy Wall Street itself. Absolutely Keep most of this article but restructure it to be about the incident.
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — WP:CRIME does not apply here. No claim is being made that Bologna has committed a crime. At best, Bologna is subject to civil liability (and not criminal). For example, a civil right violation falls under torts. So does battery. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bologna is subject to criminal liability, exception #2 of WP:CRIME would apply: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." As you see, WP:CRIME is not helpful here. --Fayerman (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Qwerty0, Occupy Wall Street pepper-spray incidents got merged back into Occupy Wall Street, do you mean the main OWS article?
 * Of course this info should be merged into the appropriate protest article.Jarhed (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My vote was before I discovered that Pepper spraying at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration had already been deleted. So it turns out my vote is effectively a belated Keep on the other article as it is quite notable. If it cannot be brought back, then I guess this information should be merged into wherever that article went (namely, Occupy Wall Street).
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The WP:CRIME concern is inapplicable on its face, given that Bologna has not been accused of a crime, and the article does not assert that he has committed a crime. The BLP arguments seem just as absurd.  Anthony Bologna is an internationally-famous, high-ranking government official, who had already been described as "top brass" in a 2010 New York Daily News article (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-02/local/27063246_1_stats-show-big-move-shootings), and was the subject of the multiple biographical pieces that are noted in the article.  His involvement in alleged civil rights violations during demonstrations surrounding the 2004 National Convention has been noted in some of the most important media outlets in the world, from the NY Times to the UK Guardian to the Atlantic monthly.  A total of 26,800 web pages are presently returned from a google search for "anthony bologna" 2004 (including the quotation marks), with many top results coming from major media sources.  Some editors have pointed out that the 2004 incident wasn't big news until after the 2011 incident came to light.  But how is that in any way relevant?  There's absolutely nothing in the rule that says that press coverage must be contemporaneous with the event.  If anything, this just shows that much of the media have exactly the same rule that Wikipedia does, with many articles only discussing the 2011 event because of the existence of the 2004 event, and vice-versa.  Maybe WP:BLP1E should be modified to say that every newsworthy event has to be covered in the media at the same time as they actually happened.  But that's not the rule, so, until that change is made, we should apply the rule the way it is written, right?  And right now, today, Bologna is famous for, and has received international mainstream press coverage for, both separate incidents.  Accordingly, BLP1E cannot possibly apply.PromiseOfNY (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — PromiseOfNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "internationally-famous" is a preposterous claim, this person was not well known even in NYC before this event. "top brass" is a term of color, not an encyclopedic description; there is no such category for NYC police nor do any of this person's peers have similiar articles. All of the non-BLP1E coverage is local, as in neighborhood. Notability outside of BLP1E is not established by any stretch.Jarhed (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, internationally famous. That is as uncontrovercial claim as any claim can be, if we're being objective.  Here are just a few of the articles from mainstream publications reporting on Bologna's involvement in the 2004 incident: The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna - The International Business Times: (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/222251/20110929/anthony-bologna-nypd.htm) - The Daily Mail (UK): (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043308/NYPD-cop-Anthony-Bologna-pepper-sprays-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-video.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) - The Dawn (Pakistan's oldest and most widely-read English newspaper, according to Wikipedia): http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/02/wall-street-protests-success-not-easily-measured.html) - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/27/tech/cnettechnews/main20112427.shtml) - The Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/anonymous-goes-after-pepper-spray-cops-personal-info/42960/) - Der Spiegel (Germany) (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,789227,00.html) - Il Post (Italy): (http://www.ilpost.it/2011/09/29/il-nuovo-video-delle-aggressioni-a-wall-street/).  This is just a tiny sampling.  It goes on and on and on.  See for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q="anthony+bologna"+2004 .  Any claim that Bologna is not internationally famous for this 2004 incident is simply false.  There's no other word for it. - PromiseOfNY (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me, I misunderstood your original statement. Yes, this person received international coverage about his role in this single event, hence BLP1E. Thanks for pointing that out.Jarhed (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I don't understand. We seem to be agreeing that he's internationally famous for his role in the 2004 Republican National Convention as documented in those articles above.  He is also, of course, internationally famous for his role in the 2011 pepper-spraying incident.  Accordingly, whatever objections one might have to the article, BLP1E cannot apply, and the article should be fixed, if necessary, not deleted. -PromiseOfNY (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to redirect uninvolved users to this article shows a COI agenda and in my opinion you should not be editing this article.Jarhed (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is notable even without the pepper spray incident. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 13:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is not a single other incident described in the BLP, I'm pretty sure that you are wrong.Jarhed (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject was notable as far back as 2004. What are you talking about? elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proof positive would be a WP article before this event, which never happened. Before the event, all sources available for this subject would have been insufficient to establish notability under WP guidelines, as not a single one of them is a reliable secondary source. This is not a matter of opinion, but a plain reading of notability guidelines. In addition, I note that none of the subject's peers has an article, even ones involved in notable events, which establishes that this individual is not notable by virtue of his municipal job.Jarhed (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No -- it simply means that people weren't motivated to create articles on them. There are many notable people without articles. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A review of the sources available for this subject before this BLP1E event show that you are flat wrong. They are not sufficient to establish notability as per WP guidelines, hence the AfD for BLP1E. A review of the sources for any of the subject's peers shows this to be a common characteristic of them all.Jarhed (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Redirect Nom's "Article exists to name and shame" is unfounded opinion. BLP2E is a joke. Subject's notability is well established (see Fayerman et al.). Writegeist (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E, an article about an obscure New York City police official propelled to prominence by a single incident. I think it's important to quote the relevant portion of that policy: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. Let's not pretend that there is any chance there would be an article on this official were it not for the pepper spraying incident, an article on which was justifiably merged with the article on the Wall Street demonstrations. The 2004 allegations are absolutely irrelevant to Bologna's notability, which relate to that single incident. The routine biographical details taken from a non-notable free-distribution handout weekly ("Downtown Express," a publication of questionable appropriateness for a BLP ), were added as a fig leaf. I echo Collect's comment and urge the closing administrator to take into consideration that many of the editors materializing here have had few edits apart from this subject area. It seems to me that this is a test case as to whether Wikipedia is serious about BLP, even when a mob of editors descends on an article or an AfD with the intent of circumventing it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bologna has had a "substantial and well-documented role" in several separate incidents involving his use of pepper spray. Even if there were only one incident, you omit the part of BLP1E that counters your argument: where the "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented — as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981 — a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." E.g. Aron Ralston, D.B. Cooper, Colton Harris-Moore, etc., and also such as Stacey Kon and Laurence Powell. International RS coverage of Bologna's role in the 2011 mace assaults is documented in other comments here, as is coverage of his previous mace assault. Writegeist (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The bolded quote from the BLP policy doesn't apply, since the recent incident is not the only context in which reliable sources covered this individual. It was already linked above, but here again is a 2010 Daily News article that describes Inspector Bologna as "top brass" in the NYPD: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-02/local/27063246_1_stats-show-big-move-shootings TypoBoy (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2010 article was on staffing moves in which Bologna is mentioned in passing. Comparing him to Hinckley is absurd. The pepper spray incident was insufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own, and has been merged. ScottyBerg (talk)20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, that Daily News article only makes a one sentence mentioning of Bologna. Truthsort (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, what ScottyBerg said.Jarhed (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In BLP1E Hinckley is an example, not a threshold. ScottyBerg's strawman argument addresses a comparison that has been neither stated nor implied. Comparison with the assassin of a head of state is obviously no more at issue here than in countless other single-incident BLPs. And Bologna's isn't even a single-incident BLP. Please. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hinckley is indeed an example, cited in the policy, of the magnitude of notoriety required for BLP1E not to apply. So it is a threshold, in a sense. I think we'd all agree that Bologna spraying pepper in a non-notable incident is not of the magnitude of somebody pumping bullets into the president of the United States. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The policy goes no further than citing the Reagan shooting as an example of a significant event and Mr. Hinckley's role as one that was substantial and well-documented. Nowhere does the policy cite the "magnitude" of H's "notoriety" as a qualifying criterion for a single-event BLP. (That fanciful idea originates from ScottyBerg - not from BLP1E.) Neither, in fact, does the policy mention "notoriety" of any kind as a criterion. And neither, incidentally, was Hinckley "pumping bullets into the president," as SB says (Mr. Reagan was hit by just one ricochet) - that claim also, like the one re. the content of BLP1E policy, is about as accurate as Mr. Hinckley's shooting. And anyway, and most importantly, the incidents of Mr Bologna's pepper-spraying, being several, do not fall under BLP1E - as already explained elsewhere. Writegeist (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've tagged the article for neutrality. At this point just under half of the article is devoted to the pepper spraying incident. Over half is entirely sourced to a free-distribution community newspaper and a non-notable website (DNAinfo.com), and it is questionable if we can use such a non-verifiable, non-RS sources for such a large portion of a BLP. If this is a legitimate biography of a New York City police official deserving an article of his own, there would obviously be material of unimpeachable quality and notability available to give this article sufficient girth, so as to not allow this NPOV violation to exist as it currently does. Right now the article is not neutral, overweights one event and is an example of recentism. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please follow WP:AFDFORMAT when discussing articles for deletion. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s). You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line. (Since you removed my friendly warning from your talk page and failed to cure the situation, I had to post the above message here). --Fayerman (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never seen an editor try to police a deletion discussion like you are doing and I am wondering why you are doing it.Jarhed (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree and in addition, if this person were truly notable, there would be more than one reliable source for biographical info. This BLP doesn't even have one.Jarhed (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Bologna is now somewhat notorious not simply for the recent pepper spray incident but for other incidents of abuse as well. I believe this makes him notable through notoriety, if nothing else. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Chief Red Eagle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: I am very concerned by this post on an external website by one of the most active editors on the page, calling for outside assistance. "IMPORTANT: Please go to the Anthony Bologna Wikipedia page, click on Discussion, and comment to make sure that the Anthony Bologna Wikipedia page is not deleted." The closing administrator should take note of this solicitation for input into this AfD. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no such post on the external website page linked by ScottyBerg. Writegeist (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are in comments on high-traffic articles, there are presently three. Here is a Google search that should pull them: Google occupywallstJarhed (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief. So far as I am concerned, that should get him an immediate block.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that's wildly inappropriate, but I'm not sure how much it matters at this point. I don't see how the current discussion can end with anything other than no consensus. I'll be very surprised if there isn't a second discussion in a few weeks once things cool down a bit. Pburka (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus in a highly negative BLP on a non-public figure, the default should be to delete, not to keep. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you're overreacting a bit. The article is actually quite neutral. A Google news search for Anthony Bologna gives a significantly more negative spin in the top headlines than does our article. There is no risk that the Wikipedia article will damage the subject's reputation if it's left up for a few weeks when the top Google news headlines are "Unnecessary Use of Pepper Spray", "Anthony Bologna of NYPD Part of Long History of Police Brutality" and "Anthony Bologna Petition: Remove Mr. Mace From NYPD Force". Pburka (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes it not neutral is the overemphasis on one incident, which is why we are here and why the article has been tagged for neutrality. Were the article to survive, it is entirely possible that the entire "career" section would not survive, given the caliber of the sourcing. It is, in any event, window-dressing as the purpose of the article is to hash out the pepper spraying incident. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider all outside coverage immaterial with regard to the application of BLP policy to a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The external CANVASS done by an ostensible Wikipedia editor implying that said editor is part of the group involved in the incident is sufficient for this to be closed as a delete in and of itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The post appears in multiple locations on that website.. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The closing admin needs to have a good look and not count accounts that have just appeared out of a stagnant edit history and posted in support of keeping this Bio.  Someone should go through the keep vote comments and see how many are like that or SPA. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:False consensus contains the ArbCom official findings sufficient to disregard any such !votes, or to block any such accounts,, if an admin so notes them. Collect (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. BIO1E says that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Occupy Wall Street is indisputably significant, and Bologna has gotten tons of coverage due to his role within it. City O  f Silver  23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The pepper spraying incident occurred approx. two miles from the Occupy Wall Street demonstration. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute the significance of the Wall Street protest as being the same as any other similiar protest, which is newsworthy but not noteworthy.Jarhed (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - One news blurb of purely local/regional interest 5 years ago does not constitute an "event". I have not seen such pathetic source stretching since the Serene Branson war, and AfD that'd make a fitting precedent for this actually.  An old local event + a major event does not add up to 2, especially when no one paid much attention to the local event at the time, and it only gets some coverage because of #2.  To say that this case now surpasses 1E shows a frankly incompetent reading of what WP:BLP1E is designed to prevent.  The officer is known for the current pepper-spray incident, nothing more.  As such, no article is warranted. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A source is a source. When you have to say that a source doesn't count for your reasoning to work out, then you should rethink your reasoning. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to not know what you are talking about. A source is certainly not a source, sources vary widely in reliability and differ in type. Could you please restate your comment in such a way that it is not completely incorrect?Jarhed (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "A source is certainly not a source," - and you are asking someone else to restate their comment "in such a way that it is not completely incorrect?".--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the original editor, "a source is a source", that statement is certainly not correct. Happy now?Jarhed (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — There is no requirement in either WP:NOT, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E or WP:EVENT that the news coverage shall be from the time period immediately following the first event. Bologna is notable for both events not just because of the "one news blurb" several years ago, but also because his involvement in the first event received additional significant coverage since September 26, 2011.
 * I didn't say there was such a requirement, so that is a bit of a strawman response. What I said was that what you call the "first event" is nothing of the sort. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You did say that you have a problem with the older sources covering Bologna (e.g. "One news blurb", "pathetic source stretching", etc.) Any arguments about the quality of the older sources are moot at this point, since the latest coverage of both incidents involving Bologna are not just "blurbs" or "pathetic". Thanks. :) --Fayerman (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not moot at all. Routine coverage 5 years ago + 1 event now do not add up to a WP:GNG requirement.  Just because they are talking now about the years-ago local stuff doesn't cut it, sorry. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most certainly was not notable before this event (an interview in a local newspaper does not equal significant coverage by a long shot). As is clear from the history of the article, the intent is to give further coverage of the pepper spraying incident, which is already covered more than adequately at the main article. There are two issues, one is BLP1E, which I believe applies, though I certainly appreciate that there are differences of opinion. The other is, where is best for this information to be presented? At the moment, the actual notable information (as opposed to the fluff that is bolstering it) is present in the main article. Articles for deletion/Ian Brady is an example of someone far more notable than this yet they have been redirected to the event. I know that's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF but the same principle applies - what's the point of duplicating information, especially so for something as contentious as this and where BLP problems are likely to arise. Polequant (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (comment stricken - mistaken identity) Wnt (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is used in the current article - it's the same publisher: compare and . I'm not quite sure why you wanted to refer to the same article twice in "your version". Polequant (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your accusation of bad faith is a blatant violation of WP guidelines. I insist that you follow WP guidelines in this debate.Jarhed (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, looking at this it's apparent the article was retained, just with a different publication name. I've stricken my comment per your complaint since it was mistaken anyway. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — (In response to Polequant's argument that "an interview in a local newspaper does not equal significant coverage" and other similar arguments by other editors) — There is no requirement in either WP:NOT, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E or WP:EVENT that the news coverage shall be from the time period immediately following the first event. Bologna is notable for both events not just because he made the news several years ago, but also because his involvement in the first event received additional significant coverage in the last two weeks. Recent coverage of the two incidents involving Bolonga renders your argument about the older local news moot. --Fayerman (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim ignores the reliability of the earlier sources, which is low and not suitable for establishing notability in any case. I could get my own bio in my neighborhood advertising paper merely by buying advertising in it. Such sources have low reliability and are not suitable for establishing notability.Jarhed (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when the coverage of the first "event" was, because the first "event" was an accusation of misconduct at the Republican convention demonstrations in 2004. It is of such triviality that it can hardly be considered an event at all, certainly not to substantiate a BLP. There is only one noteworthy event in this article that can be validly considered to be an event for BLP purposes. This article's sole purpose is to rehash the pepper-spraying incident in 2011, and the 2004 accusations (which is all they are, after seven years) are completely tangential. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply — (to ScottyBerg) See, that's another whole argument, but with which I also disagree. You said that Bologna's involvement and consequent civil law suit is "of such triviality that it can hardly be considered an event at all." Well, then why so many newspapers mentioned the fact of his involvement? Something tells me it's uncommon that a NYPD officer is subject to a civil rights violation lawsuit. Are you saying that it's common for the NYPD to be sued for a violation of civil rights? Either way, my reply to Polequant covered a different unrelated point in his argument. If you mean it's trivial for the police to be sued for millions of dollars (I read the federal complaint and Bologna's answer) for false arrests, then you might be right that this article should be deleted. :) --Fayerman (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lawsuits against the NYPD police department, and high ranking officials thereof, are fairly common. This suit is being mentioned in relation to the pepper spraying incident, and would not have been worthy of publicity were it not for that. It has no independent notability and is just a footnote to the 2011 incident that is the focus of this article. The fact that the suit received no attention at the time is an indication of its triviality.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply — Please cite which Wikipedia policy talks about "independent notability". You mean to say that if someone ran 100 marathons in 100 days, that would not be notable, because each of those marathons is trivial? Please let me see a relevant Wikipedia rule that backs up your point. Thanks! --Fayerman (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. I wasn't planning to parse it down that far, but since you raised the issue I will. For the purposes of this discussion (it's noted at the top of WP:1E), "event" is defined at, naturally enough, WP:EVENT, specifically the subsection "The Event" (WP:EFFECT): "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect are notable, even if the event may not solidly meet any or all of the other criteria. Events with lasting effects may have historical significance, which is why such events are allowed automatic inclusion." By this definition, the 2007 lawsuit about alleged 2004 behavior is almost certainly not an "event" for BLP1E purposes. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, note that "people notable for only one event" is touched upon in WP:EVENT. So this notability guideline specifically applies to BLP1E, defining what is meant by "event." Thanks for raising this issue as it's given us a chance to clarify this important point. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to ScottyBerg, unfortunately, the quoted guideline sentences do not help your position (I wish they did). You are committing a logical fallacy where the predicate term of the conclusion refers to all members of that category, but the same term in the premises refers only to some members of that category (also known as Illicit major). This fallacy has the following argument form:


 * # All A are B
 * # No C are A
 * # Therefore, no C are B


 * As applied by you:
 * # All events with noted permanent effect are notable
 * # No civil lawsuits involving cops are events with noted permanent effect
 * # Therefore, no civil lawsuits involving cops are notable


 * Please let me know if you agree that you just misapplied the guidelines quoted above due to the incorrect argumentation in your reasoning. If you disagree, we might need help of a qualified logician. Thank you. --Fayerman (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need more wikilawyering on this point. You asked for a definition of event, and there it is. It doesn't support your position, obviously. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering? Sounds like a compliment. I will let the closing admin decide when the time comes. Thank you! :) --Fayerman (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Preposterous logic. The old event does not meet notability guidelines under any stretch, and attempts to cast retroactive notability on it from contemporaneous BLP1E coverage in order to bypass the BLP1E guideline is simply ludicrous.Jarhed (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; slightly baffled by some of the seemingly spurious delete arguments. Multiple sources covering several events in this policeman's life, easily satisfy GNG in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason that you might find some of the delete arguments baffling could be that you don't understand them, for example, GNG is not sufficient for a stand-alone article.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah right, that'll be it. Point me to where it says that, if you don't mind. --John (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." GNG.Jarhed (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one, thanks for confirming that it is you who do not understand the policy. Cheers, --John (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the "several events"?ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad I could be of service.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained in the GNG, the "presumption" reflects that other policies like WP:NOT could exclude certain articles. It's not a codeword for "deletionists are free to ignore this standard when they feel like it". Wnt (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "codeword" interpretation is pure POV and GNG is crystal clear that the stand-alone article determination is more complicated that you are willing to acknowledge. One big, obvious, and frankly galling omission in your blithe GNG reference is BLP.Jarhed (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete People known for only one incident don't get articles. If the incident becomes a prominent case, then the case gets an article. Even Troy Davis didn't get an article.  Equazcion ( talk ) 04:55, 6 Oct 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Troy Davis' entire biography from childhood on is in that article; somebody just had a compulsion to put "case" after his name in the title. That's not a deletion. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The title wasn't the result of some arbitrary compulsion, it was abiding by policy. The case is what's supposed to get the article. As with many prominent cases, the bios of those involved can often be seen as necessary included info, but the focus of the article is still the case, rather than the individuals involved.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:50, 6 Oct 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Occupy_Wall_Street as a plausible search term. Buddy431 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no sources other than media outlets echoing the one event. The subject is in a video showing a bad thing (that is not before any court other than that of public opinion), and the subject has been mocked by Jon Stewart. The remaining content is puffery to disguise the fact that this article is an attempt to attack a subject using the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Recreate the article after something of encyclopedic value happens (regrettably, there are many incidents of citizens being badly treated around the world on a daily basis—Wikipedia should record only the notable incidents and participants). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject satisfies WP:BIO. One of the references is from 2005, which establishes coverage (and therefore, notability) over a range of time. BLP1E does not apply in this case. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP;BLP1E. The older local human interest stories are essentially routine coverage, not significant coverage for establishing notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Doesn't even read like a real bio.  More like an attack page.  Malke 2010 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per ScottyBerg. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious WP:COATRACK article, and consequently a WP:BLP problem. Resolute 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I read the entire article and see no problems with having it. There are references throughout the article, he getting coverage for more than just the one incident.  It is written in a fair and neutral way.  You don't delete something simply because one or more people are changing things to something inappropriate.  The Roman Polanski article has for two years now had people random come and add in "child molester" to the lead where it list him as a director and actor, and these of course were always quickly reverted.  But that is not grounds for deletion.  This article is not in its current form anything that could be seen as an attack page.  Please judge it in its current state.   D r e a m Focus  17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That totally misconstrues the opposition to this article, which is primarily based on BLP1E, not lack of references or vandalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some complain about various things, including its an attack page, a coatrack, and a POV magnet. Different people are against the article's continual existence for different reasons.   D r e a m Focus  20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As the norm for negative BLP1E's.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I say delete this article for the reasons others gave. B-Machine (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or at the very least redirect as Buddy says above. Without the pepper spraying incident we would not even consider having an article here, with it it is only one event. AIR corn (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete only routine coverage + a single event. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in Canada. We talked about this guy at work and this is where I ended out finding out more about him. He may have only done one significant thing in his life but he knocked the ball out of the park with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oruanaidh (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Zuccotti Park maybe. Yankee Stadium no way. Contrast that lady in the pen again with Mary Ann Vecchio. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake, he just pepper-sprayed a hippy, he didn't find a cure for cancer. Perspective; find it. Tarc (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you strike your comment as inappropriate, particularly the "hippy" part?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm just fine with my comment, sport, thanks. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - classic WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E (or 1.5E, at best). I don't know what all the shouting here is about, peeps - A l is o n  ❤ 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge a summary to appropriate article... involving pepper and Bologna... say, Mortadella. &rarr;  Stani Stani  07:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that it feels like a BLP1E problem; he hasn't done anything notable enough to warrant an article before, and the only thing that has changed is that he may have used pepper spray inappropriately. That warrants the existing (and extensive) coverage in the Occupy Wall Street article, but it doesn't seem to warrant a full article on the person accused. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- if there had been an article prior to the pepper-spraying, then it would have been a matter of BLP1E -- but the pepper-spraying combined with the earlier stuff makes it ≠ BLP1E. I knew that numeracy had degenerated in English-speaking countries, but I guess I didn't realize how bad things had gotten.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the petty insult, I have to wonder if there's something I'm missing. Does being named in a lawsuit make one notable?  Centrify  (talk)  (contribs) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources speak for themselves. Any NPOV issues that the article may have should be fixed through normal editing practices, with discussion on the talk page as necessary. Although I can't see any problems since evreything seems well referenced from prominent international newspapers (e.g. The New York Times and The Guardian. Polyamorph (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is indeed a one event BLP. There's no coverage of the purported prior event until after the one event he's known for. 71.232.52.161 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — 71.232.52.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. This is a pure example of an article that belongs in a separate article and not a BLP article. Kansan (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are proposing a merge, not a delete. Should a BLP be merged into another article then the original BLP history must be preserved per WP:CWW. Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. BLP2E is certainly neither policy nor guideline. While the subject's current notoriety may result from a central role in a particular event, coverage demonstrates significance beyond that event. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Congrats to the admin who's daring enough to close this nomination when it's run its course. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, very clever, as an admin, you just want to post something here so you don't have to be the admin who closes the discussion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. The prevalence of WP editors who are incapable of transcending recentism will never cease to amaze me. Deor (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The topic meets the notability guidelines for biographies. The subject is notable for more than one event. WP:BLP1E therefore does not apply. Creating a BLP2E is a slippery slope, if we were to create such a policy where would it end? What next, a proposal to create a BLP3E policy? In any event, coverage has continued after the event took place. Even if it were only one event, it wouldn't apply because there has been persistent coverage. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    02:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis that it is a biography of a living person known for only one event. It would have been best not to mention "BLP2E" in the nomination, but what's done is done. In my view, the 2004 incident is non-notable, except that investigative journalists have recently unearthed and revived discussion of that incident, but only in the context of researching Bologna's background because of the 2011 incident.  I do not believe that the 2004 incident has the sort of independent notability required to overcome WP:BLP1E.  Off2riorob did a good job of summarizing the arguments against this article early on, and Bbb23 also offered a good overview of the issues.  I agree, in particular, with the deletion arguments advanced by Collect and DGG.  ScottyBerg did a good job of critiquing the manifest weaknesses of the older sources.  Jarhed made many good points, although I disagree with Jarhed's specific contention that if Bologna was notable, there would already have been an article about him before the recent incident.  Instead, I would simply say that he was non-notable, so whether or not to have an article about him was not an issue until recent weeks.  I favor inclusion of neutral, well-referenced coverage of this pepper-spray incident in Occupy Wall Street, but I oppose a free-standing biography of this police officer at this time.  A redirect is fine with me as his name is a plausible search term.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As the nominator, I sincerely and deeply regret being flippant when I said "BLP2E", which was sarcasm about the argument that 2004 should be considered a discreet "event". While almost all Delete !votes state WP:BLP1E, with a few also saying maybe "BLP1.5E" in a joking manner as well, it was entirely inappropriate of me to have made a nomination in such a manner. I appreciate that so many of you have taken the time to look at the article and sources and make your own well-thought opinion. A big mea culpa, LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the most recent editor to comment previously, I accept your explanation and your apology, LoveUxoxo, and hope that your initial joke will have no lasting impact on the outcome of this debate. Best to you.  Thanks in advance, also, to the administrator who analyzes this one properly.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep More than important enough to be kept, plug whatever Wikipedia lingo needed here. --88.16.192.72 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — 88.16.192.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The reliable sources indicate that the subject is notable for more than one event, though the 2004 events would not have been adequate sources to support an individual article for Bologna on their own. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how a keep is not obvious here - it appears to me that the argument being used is some sort of BLP+1E rather than simply BLP2E.  The contention appears to be that if a subject had not been quite notable enough for an article, being involved in one more event then should not serve to make that person notable.  If we were to accept this notion, we can extend BLP1E to BLP2E, to BLP3E, and by induction no one could become notable (or at least no article that we don't like).--Noren (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If the 2004 incident is so notable then why is there not a single source from 2004 mentioning it? Truthsort (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy, because until the recent events, it wasn't notable. Based on what happened now, the media dug into Bologna's past. Looking at court records is certainly a standard media thing to do. It's kind of like doing a background check. And, oh my, they found some lawsuits related to the convention. Shocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not elevate the 2004 stuff to "event" status, in terms of how we apply notability policy, though. If he's getting coverage for it now, then it is considered coverage as part of the recent events.  If people are basing their keep votes on this...the belief that coverage in 2011 of something that happened in 2004 now makes 2004 a standalone event to consider for notability, this is going to be a shockingly easy deletion finding for the closing admin that comes along. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Keep" The officer is a defendant in two civil suits that demonstrate the same pattern of behavior. Like Volpe during the Guiliani era, Bologna's behavior has become central to the Mayor's claim to have maintained law and order in the city. Gorgonzilla (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete.  This article exists only because of people who want this man to be tried in the media rather than in court.  Doesn't even seem BLP1E-worthy to me. Centrify  (talk)  (contribs) 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) (formerly editing as "Factchecker")
 * Comment - doesn't that in itself make this subject notable, and worth having some neutral, balanced and referenced info? Just because it's not notable or significant to you or a few people, doesn't mean it isn;t notable or significant to other people.  The delete arguments here remind me a bit of that old expression "Nothing to see here folks, now move it along" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment puzzles me. Are you saying that a person is notable if there is at least one person who thinks he is notable? Centrify  (talk)  (contribs) 01:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what I said. That slippery slope strawman could be reversed: Did you say an article is not notable if at least one person thinks he is not notable? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying he is barely notable for one event and not notable for another, and that it's somewhat ridiculous for WP readers to be treated with a touching depiction of friendly cops coming into a deli and encouraging one Mr. Bologna, har de har, to enlist in the Police Academy just because this guy was mentioned in newspaper articles about a protest and had his personal details published by a lefty hate group. Centrify (talk)  (contribs) 02:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've seen I don't like it used as a keep argument. (It's still invalid.) Lagrange613 02:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I haven't counted, but it seems about half the keep !votes rely on various arguments to avoid. (It's useful! People are talking about him! He's a bad guy! Look at Google!) The closing admin should weigh these very little, if at all, especially given the external canvassing mentioned above. The 2005 Downtown Express and 2010 DNAinfo.com fluff pieces amount to insignificant coverage in unreliable sources. The 2010 Daily News piece contains only trivial mention. The rest is just coverage of one event or non-notable dirt dug up in response to that event. His order to arrest some guy in 2004 doesn't come close to being a notable event. The coatracking seems to have been mostly addressed, but BLP1E still mandates deletion. Lagrange613 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Pass WP:ANYBIO and has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plain and simple. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit early to judge how "the enduring historical record" of police work will treat Bologna, so which "well-known and significant award or honor" has he received? Lagrange613 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, so it's a bit early to judge that this coverage will never occur either. In the meanwhile, we can look at the fact that the international news has taken extensive interest in this issue:


 * "A 2001 report recovered by intelligence blog Cyptome claims Bologna is "notorious for his previous treatment of protesters," and described an allegation by the People's Law Collective that said Bologna shoved two protesters before later returning to arrest them."


 * "At the 2004 Republican Convention, Bologna was again cited for unnecessary force, and stands accused of false arrest and civil rights violations in a claim filed in 2007."


 * "Alan Levine, a civil rights lawyer representing a protester allegedly held in a special detention facility for hours during the 2004 Convention, heard about the pepper spray incident and immediately thought of Bologna. "A bunch of were wondering," he said, according to The Guardian, "if any of the same guys were involved."" International Business Times Sep 29


 * In this case, Anthony Bologna isn't just a subsection of an event -- it seems likely that he should also be included in an article on NYPD police brutality, as the article focuses on many other similar events. If the subject happens to be notable in two different topic areas -- why should it be merged into one? elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 22:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, that blog post is a retrospective based on the 2011 incident. There is no genuine pre-2011 event that has been pointed out here that raises this article beyond the level of a pseudobiography. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All the coverage of Gavrilo Princip is post-incident too. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When Deputy Inspector Bologna assassinates an archduke, be sure to let us know. When last I looked, he was up to spraying pepper spray, so he has a long way to go. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but isn't it a slight understatement of Princip's notability to say he "assassinate[d] an archduke"? ;)  Centrify  (talk)  (contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * News sources describe Anthony Bologna's actions as a major trigger for the escalation of protests, saying that no one paid attention up to that point.
 * Even Jon Stewart parodies Bologna's actions.  elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 22:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete When the article was first created it seemed to me to be a case of "Let's get him!", but my thinking did go back and forth a few times.  After reading the comments here, I've decided that the article should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is long enough, referenced enough, signifigant enough, should be kept. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2011 (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.