Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Pocceschi (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. John254 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Pocceschi (2nd nomination)

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

I still don't see why this person is notable. There was a small amount of local coverage when he died, but no more than any other local murder case. Renominating. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Note Chowbok is the one who nominated this for AFD 17 months ago. The result was no consensus and now he's renominated it. It is indeed disheartening that article that may not be globally significant but nowhere near a vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. There are far better things to delete that upstanding young policemen who are killed for no good reason.The mere fact that his death inspired his family to save others with the Fallen Officers fund makes him notable. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the "Fallen Officers Fund" notable in some way? If so, I would consider this a decent argument for keeping.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, and notability doesn't diminish over time. Whatever Chowbok's agenda is, move on, you're doing nothing worthwhile here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please AGF; speculating on my motivations is inappropriate and unseemly.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Chris (クリス • フィッチ). Let's keep it civil, thanks.  Ford MF (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * reply going after a horse you've already beaten is what is inappropriate and unseemly. I see no good faith on your part to assume. You are going after an article you've already gone after, that is a WP:POINT violation and I openly and without reservation accuse you of bad faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks and accusations of bad faith really aren't necessary. Community consensus can change, and Chowbok is well within his or her rights to re-nominate an article after a good chunk of time has passed.  Ford MF (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ford. I would also point out again that my last nomination (almost a year-and-a-half ago) was "No consensus", i.e. unresolved. I wouldn't have renominated were it "Keep". Kinsetbuffalo shouldn't take things so personally.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, same as the last time this article was nominated. The law, the media, and the popular culture all treat the murder of a police officer as a "special" offense, one that is almost automatically notable.  People get murdered all the time without receiving any subsequent media coverage, with nothing more than a sentence fragment in a local police blotter, but a police officer?  Never.  Ford MF (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Ford MF that renomination after a long wait is permissible, unlike the barrage of deletion attempts launched against some articles.  Nevertheless, the original coverage hasn't vanished, and there's at least one additional story since the first AfD: .  I've added this reference to our article. JamesMLane t c 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above; seems to be quite notable given the presence in multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Zsero (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; definitely notable in posthumous effect. Redrocket (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep in the hope of changing the general consensus, but with considerable skepticism. What makes this more notable than other murders? do we intend to include every murder of a police officer? That might be plausible, but are there other recent precedents? I wouldn't particularly mind, in fact, if we included all murders as a matter of policy, but I think the consensus is still against it in general.   I don't want to debate every murder at AfD, and I think the solution is to establish a general rule, and follow it, so what I'm after is some degree of consistency.   The continuing publicity seems to have been entirely local, about a non-notable memorial fund. And in any case, if kept, it needs to be transferred to the event, as Murder of Rodney Pocceschi because he is not otherwise notable.  I think the keeps are a violation of WP:MEMORIAL.  And it is perfectly proper to nominate again after a no consensus--as often as it takes to get consensus one way or another, allowing a reasonable time for a chance to get additional opinions--a month or two is usual-- the purpose of these discussions is to get consensus.  A  In fact, if kept, I'll take it as a signal that consensus generally is changing; if it doesnt, I will certainly consider it fair if someone renominates  after another 6 months, which I think the proper time after a single keep.   DGG (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem with what you propose, DGG, is that Wikipedia establishes notability through reliable media sources, and reliable media sources show no consistency whatsoever when it comes to covering murders.  (It's kind of a hobby of mine.)  A middle-aged black man, Matthew Smith, stabbed to death in the Bronx receives a single sentence in the police blotter of one single New York paper (no other paper, to my knowledge reported the murder).  Whereas the murder of a reasonably affluent, arty, attractive white female makes for national headlines.  I'm not on a soapbox here about what this says about the prejudices of the consumers of mass media, I'm just saying that it is what it is.  And I'm on the team that says all murdered police officers are automatically notable, since a murdered police officer always, always rates media coverage.  Ford MF (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (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.