Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police Misconduct in Pasadena Texas


 * 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Police Misconduct in Pasadena Texas

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter nor a tabloid. It is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. There was one instance only that would be allowed in the main article (Pasadena). Names should not be used to start with. The main point seems to be to humiliate these people who are not career criminals or as a current indictment against the police department. This article appears to be the result of numerous deletes from the main article for reasons given there. Probably should be quickly deleted. Appears that someone has an axe to grind. This sort of thing apparently appeared in the Houston article, as well. Student7 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete would appear to be a classic WP:UNDUE case. We don't have a similar article for any other town that I could find (although there is Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies).  If there's reliable sources anywhere that say Pasadena has an unusual degree of police incidents then perhaps that might be appropriate in the town's article, but a short laundry list of issues in an article of its own isn't going to fly. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear POV violation from someone with something against police officers in suburban Houston. Several of the 'sources' like this one named "Outlaw Cops in Texas" are clearly RadarOnline-esque in quality and in the sarcastic tone of the writing and should never be used in a serious article at all.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is extremely POV, with an obvious bias against the police department. The article also violates UNDUE, as I see almost no mentions of "the other side of the story" in the information on the page. Most of these incidents don't seem notable enough to be mentioned in Pasadena, Texas Police Department (if the article existed...but the same applies for Pasadena, Texas), so for me it casts into doubt the overall notability of this article as well. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * copied from Talk:Pasadena, Texas:
 * "The article is about Pasadena, Texas..not about police misconduct in the city. Please see WP:UNDUE. The section needs to be trimmed or moved to another article. This edit summary [1] suggests that the editor may have violated WP:COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.86.66 (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)"
 * 1.Move to delete the material, claiming POV, UNDUE, too much info for summary article, NEO, "this article is/isn't.." .w/e. If there is any discussion at all, decline to address any points, simply repeat assertions and the acronyms, ad nauseum, throwing in some alternatives to taste such as 'tempest in a teapot' or 'much ado about nothing'. 2. If the contributor is browbeaten by this and does not create a new article, mission accomplished. 3. If not, AfD the new article claiming POV, UNDUE, COATRACK, w/e. Steps 1-3 do not have to be completed by the same person.
 * Every single Delete voter tells us first and foremost about something they cannot possibly know, the motivations of the writer, as though this was in any way relevant to the content. Judging content by its creator is Ad Hominem, people.
 * Nom concentrates all their mindreading powers and comes up with an ad hominem 'Appears that someone has an axe to grind', and an opinion about the motives of the perp, I mean editor. Waste of effort, really. Nom should be using their psychic abilities to fight crime somewhere, imo.
 * Starblind asserts 'classic' UNDUE and then gives an example of another article that is very similar. Huh?
 * MrSchimpf is also endowed with ESP; he can tell straight away that the person writing about police committing crimes, and being arrested has something against police officers.
 * Ksostm. My goodness, this page sure has a lot of extrasensory talent. But wait, "the other side of the story"? Could this finally be relevant? Sadly, no. If there is another side to the story, by all means tell it, but if it is not available, it is not required. (Furthermore, it really IS undue weight to include, e.g., one mad scientist's view of the world when all scientists agree that something is, for all practical purposes, true, e.g a Theory)
 * As for the talk about why it is not, that it should be, etc, included in Pasadena (which are all OTHERSTUFF remarks, in any case)? Look at the quote from the Talk Page. As you should have done before you even wrote your opinions. It was included. The same Ad Hominem was used on the talk page to move the author to create this article with content that was being repeatedly deleted.
 * As for whether it actually remains here? You see a vote? Any monkey can html themselves a multicolored Sig, hit the caps button, and copy some WP rules to throw at the wall. Arguments alone should count. According to WP:DELETION, they do:
 * "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."
 * Hah, have to scoff at that last phrase. No they aren't. Because of this, I have already washed my hands of WP long ago and I refuse to dignify the farce of voting with my vote, here. Anarchangel (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My vote is based on basic POV, not because I see the guy is expressing opinions that have been articulated by Ice Cube in the past in profane rap form; if there was an issue of police brutality, this debate would be alot different, but as it is this is police nitpicking; singling out incidents that on the surface are just localized between the accuser and the police, not the entire community, and not only that, spread out through a number of years, which discounts any pattern of ongoing and continuous police misconduct. As I have seen your edit history on other AFD's I ask you to refrain from commenting on the contributors of this discussion and stick to why you feel this article should be kept.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My !vote (note: !vote) has reasoning behind it (an argument to it), which I provided right after my !vote. My arguments were based around Wikipedia Policy, which does actually matter a great deal. We "throw the rules at the wall" because they are the rules, which do count, and our arguments do stand valid because they are based in policy. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an argument
 * keep the individual proposing deletion has a personal interest in the removal of a factual entry. It is amazing how everyone seems to have ESP in regards to believing they are able to read the mind of the creator. Archangel stated it best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.37.219 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is just a collection of incident summaries sourced to news stories. I'd call it WP:SYNTH except nothing is synthesized. The entirety of the lead reads, There are several documented examples of police misconduct in Pasadena, Texas, United States.  By that standard, there's be a corresponding article for every locality throughout the world. EEng (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (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.