Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Young (MTPD)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The delete arguments are more convincing than the keeps here. Policies and guidelines that are tailored to a particular situation carry more weight than those that are more general, and that is exactly what we are seeing here with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP versus the sourcing arguments based on WP:GNG. It has been argued effectively below that WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME indicate that we should not have an article on this individual, as they have not been convicted of a crime, and so WP:DEL9 applies. If the subject is convicted in the future, then this debate can be revisited. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Young (MTPD)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for being charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. Per WP:PERP, we do not create articles about otherwise non-notable people on the basis of criminal allegations not yet proven in a court of law -- the legal and ethical sensitivities involved require us to wait until a conviction is secured. For example, the article can actually become the cause of a mistrial if we don't treat it with a level of hypervigilance much higher than "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" can actually guarantee -- people can and do regularly smear such articles with wild WP:BLP violations and presumptions of guilty until proven innocent and other violations of Wikipedia's neutrality and personal privacy rules. No prejudice against recreation if and when he's actually found guilty of something by a court of law, but until that happens an article about him is not appropriate today. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is largely a coat rack to attack Young's employers for having employed him. It suffers from lots of NPOV issues, and fixing them would leave us with bascially no article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Quality of article is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because, as CNN notes, this is " the first case of a US police officer charged with aiding ISIS", and because the news coverage has been national in scope, extensive, and in-depth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Police officer for D.C. subway system accused of trying to help ISIS" Washington Post
 * "‘I make friends easily’: How Nicholas Young allegedly supported the Islamic State" Washington Post
 * "Ex-Metro police officer Nicholas Young challenges solitary confinement" Washington Post
 * Ongoing Washington Post coverage here:
 * Washington Transit Officer Is Charged With Helping ISIS New York Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The extent of the coverage doesn't matter. If a person is notable only for a criminal allegation for which they have not yet been found guilty, then the WP:BLP issues unconditionally override any volume of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you link to that policy? Your assertion is, of course, true for most/many crimes, but with guys like Ahmad Khan Rahimi, we redirect to the crime, and with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, we had the article long before there was a conviction.  Whether we keep/create an article before we have a conviction appears to depend on the nature/significance of the crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so,  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was created within days of the Boston maration bombings, with the comment "create article, BLP1E no longer applies,".   And what WP:BLPCRIME actually says is, " For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."  must consider is not "do not", precisely because some crimes are so notable that the previously unknown dude who authorities identify as the perp is no longer protected from having a page by WP:BLP.  Ahmad Khan Rahimi (the dude who planted the recent bombs in Manhattan and New Jersey) is a recent example.
 * WP:PERP reads: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." and "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:... 2. 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."
 * The question at issue' here becomes: is the fact that Nicholas Young is accused of being the first American police officer to work on behalf of ISIS sufficiently notable and "unusual" to make him notable. I think it is, but I hope that other editors will weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nicholas Young is accused of being... This is precisely the problem. It is a BLP violation to keep an article on someone (particularly a low profile individual) who has not been formally convicted. This reduces the article to reporting a speculation and we don't do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think BLP1E applies here. We're talking about someone who has been accused of a crime, who otherwise would not be notable, and who will be quickly forgotten even if convicted. I don't understand why the fact that he happens to be an American police officer changes the policies at WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. This information should be a sentence or two in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or one of its breakaway articles, and maybe in Metro Transit Police Department. agt x  17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We let the RS coverage determine notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand this comment. Sources don't determine notability. We determine notability, based on the coverage and Wikipedia guidelines. Here, there are guidelines that tell us that when a low-profile individual is only notable for a single event that's not particularly significant, we don't have an article. The subject here is only notable for a single event—his arrest. This guy didn't shoot Reagan (or anybody, for that matter). He bought ISIS a gift card. He was low-profile. When his trial finishes, news coverage on him will end, probably permanently. There's no reason for a separate article here. agt x  15:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per " the first case of a US police officer charged with aiding ISIS". special case. BLP1E does not apply here.BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He's a transit cop, not a real police officer on a public police force. Which makes "first member of his occupation to be charged with aiding ISIS" about as interesting or encyclopedic as the first barber, the first taxi driver, the first garbageman, the first telephone line repairman or the first stockroom clerk at Walgreens to be charged with aiding ISIS — it is not a compelling reason for a BLP1E exemption. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, The D.C. Metro Police is a public agency. He was a "real police officer on a public police force." It operates in D.C., Virginia, and Maryland because the Metro tracks run across the metro region.  These are "real" officers of the law, they carry guns, arrest people, put their lives at risk, and work for us just as city police do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say transit cops weren't public employees — I said that they're not the main law enforcement agency responsible for law enforcement out there in the general public; their responsibility is limited to the transit system itself. And anyway, mailmen, firemen, garbagemen and dog-license clerks are also public employees — being the first public employee to be charged with aiding ISIS does not in and of itself constitute a reason why WP:PERP should or would not still apply, because it doesn't make him special in and of itself and didn't garner disproportionate coverage compared to any other person in any other job who was charged with the same crime. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk 10:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRIM, "the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if ... the execution ... has otherwise been considered noteworthy", which I believe this case satisfies. --  Darth Mike (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What's unusual or noteworthy about the "execution" of any of this? Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, an American police offer providing material aid to ISIS was judged "noteworthy" by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Every person charged with providing material aid to ISIS would always be judged "noteworthy" by the press to exactly the same degree. The coverage is not disproportionate to the amount of coverage that every person charged with that crime would always get regardless of whether they worked as a transit cop, a mailman, a telephone line repairman or a baker — neither the amount of coverage nor the fact of being the first transit cop to face the charge makes him some kind of special case who's earned a special personal exemption from WP:PERP. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no. That's not true. Here, "Who wanted to help the Islamic State? A gamer, a cop, a cabdriver, prosecutors say," is a Washington Post story about D.C. area men charged with assisting ISIS, the precise situation you propose.  Google the names, I did.  Just to test your assertion.  They have nothing like the coverage Nicholas Young got.  (He is discussed in this article as an unusual case.) There has already been a good deal of coverage of the conditions of his imprisonment, and there will almost certainly be more as the case moves forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's literally nothing convincing apart from those events, and then nothing actually establishing sufficient and convincing information for his own article, hence there's nothing to keep. SwisterTwister   talk  01:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your rationale for deletion is basically Idontlikeit. BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an egregious BLP violation and it should deleted per WP:DEL9. Stuff like Nicholas Young, 36, of Fairfax, is alleged to have tried to assist ISIS while working for the Metro Transit Police Department in Washington, D.C. should never be added to an encyclopaedia. No charges have been proved in a court and this article essentially risks harming the reputation of someone. The concern about a BLP violation overrides any other concerns here like BLP1E and such. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The question that you fail to engage, the question at issue in the AFD, is how notable is the crime for which this individual is imprisoned while awaiting trial? If it is sufficiently notable, teh BLP concern is waved.  Let's keep this discussion on topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to say, the topic is not the "crime", the topic is the police officer. That is a very significant difference. If the "crime" was notable, it would/should have its own article. -- HighKing ++ 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the crime, it is about a person. BLP is a core policy and there are no exceptions to it. WP:DEL9 is a perfectly valid reason for deletion here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources in addition to sources brought above, coverage in national media includes (CNN: "DC transit police officer charged with aiding ISIS" ), (Associated Press: "FBI: Transit officer 1st lawman charged under US terror law ," ), (Wall Street Journal, "Washington, D.C., Transit Officer Charged With Trying to Help Islamic State; Arrest marks first time law-enforcement officer in U.S. charged with supporting terrorism," [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/washington-d-c-transit-officer-charged-with-trying-to-help-islamic-state-1470237816]);  (New York Times, "Washington Transit Officer Is Charged With Helping ISIS," ). I and other editors weighing in above judge that the coverage is sufficient to outweigh the privacy concern, as it regularly does in terrorism-related cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a modest WP:HEYMANN with details taken from RS newspapers detailing the evidence presented by the FBI to the court.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As per BLP violation. -- HighKing ++ 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS & has not been convicted yet. No long term societal impact to justify an entry in the encyclopedia just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2016 (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.