Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Bell (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.

Sean Bell
The result was Boldly Moved (non-admin closure), Moved to Sean Bell Shooting Incident per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I know that I risk being branded many things for suggesting deletion of this article, and I assure you that my heart goes out Sean Bell and his family, but this article clearly violates WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:NOT, both of which state that an individual who is notable for only one event should not receive his/her own article. Screen stalker (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That policy is not applicable in this case for obvious reasons. This person was killed under extraordinary and controversial circumstances. The article is as much about the phenomena of his death as it is about the person. Perhaps the article should be changed to "the Shooting of Sean Bell" or something to that effect.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This discussion is not accessable from the article's page... please fix so others can weigh in.  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love   15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now fixed.  Queerbubbles  | Leave me Some Love   16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep I think the Sean Bell article is more representative of an event rather than just the person anymore which would be consistent with the policy cited above by the user recommending this deletion. If not, then I suggest putting this story under the larger scope of 'Police Brutality' (although I still believe this story is an exception and warrants its own page).70.121.199.151 (talk)Lokisyko
 * Strong Keep This is no longer a one event in light of the recent verdict. One could have argued this before the verdict, or if the verdict wasnt in favor of the NYPD, but it was.  By this argument, you could say that Amadou Diallo Johnny Gammage or Ousmane Zongo were one events.   Queerbubbles  | Leave me Some Love   15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I could agree and support a rename of the event, however.  Queerbubbles  | Leave me Some Love   16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Queerbubbles. You make some interesting arguments. However, saying that this article is similar to other articles does not mean it should stay. For instance, a mouse is a mammal because it has hair (and for a number of other reasons). One could say "but that would make dogs, cats and elephants mammals as well." True, it would. They're mammals. In this case, I have seen nothing to indicate that Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage and Ousmane Zongo are not one-event biographies. If you were to nominate them for deletion, I would probably support your nomination.
 * Regarding the argument that the verdict was a separate event, this, too, is an interesting point. But I do not think that the trial that comes out of a shooting can be regarded as entirely separate from the shooting itself. They are so linked that they cannot be divorced. Moreover, Sean Bell did not participate in the trial, so any notability that he gained by it was due entirely to the shooting. Screen stalker (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read that article you see that the article does not solely focus of Mr. Bell. It focuses on the shooting incident.  Which is why I said that I support renaming the article.  This was the argument in the previous AfD that failed.   Queerbubbles  | Leave me Some Love   16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not making a WP:OSE argument here. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sean Bell has received a lot of media attention lately. I would say that he is notable enough. At the very least, the article should be merged into list of cases of police brutality. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Given the wealth of information available the article should be kept, albeit with a difference name. However, on the grounds given should we also remove Reginald Denny or Rodney King or Latasha Harlins? These people have cultural significance. To my knowledge the media has not given a name to the incident. If there is such a name in use, given that this article is more about an incident than about one person, it ought to have different name. An example of this would be Santa Line Slaying  DAMurphy (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable series of events that center around this person with references to a particular pattern of similar events in the past - all are discussing race and power privilege, both societal issues. Not news anymore... Unfortunately. Clearly value to WP. Maksdo (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This article is based on someone who is NOT NOTABLE! The majority of people want to keep this article because of the race issue involved! There are many other notable events that have happened in the world where there is no Wiki entry. He broke the law by threatening someone and the officers used reasonable force to control him. I will agree with others that if the article will be kept, it should be renamed to some other type of notable title. Sean Bell IS NOT and will never be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 April 2008
 * Comment: The same IP made more than one !vote for strong delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OSE, you will see that the non-existence of other articles is not a valid argument for deleting an existing one. Many articles do not yet exist that should probably exist. Also, although this has no relevance regarding whether this article should be kept or not, the Wiki article makes no mention of Sean Bell "breaking the law by threatening someone" during the course of this incident, and I would venture to ask what viable source gave you such information? Also, 50+ gunshots is "reasonable force" for what unarmed man? Goliath? UNreasonable force is why many entries on this page agree that this incident should be classified under police brutality. JNycole (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Bell was shot and killed by police who were cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. Articles for Emily Wilscher and other victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre were deleted due to a consensus that they were not notable.  If those shooting victims are not notable - people killed in a criminal action by a deranged gunman in an episode that stirred far more national media attention that the Bell case in which one person was killed and the shooters cleared of criminal liability - then Sean Bell is not notable either.  Someone will soon respond that a civil case is ongoing.  There are thousands of civil cases filed against police officers every year that are frivolous and are dismissed or result in no damages and no finding of misconduct.  Sean Bell and his death are not notable; if either of the two were to qualify as being notable it would be the shooting, not Sean Bell the person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)  — 4.224.111.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The article is not about the person, it is about the incident. Need I direct you to Rodney King?   Queerbubbles  | Leave me Some Love   17:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article is about an incident then it should have a title that reflects that, instead of being titled with a person's name, and dwelling on that person instead of on the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence why I said that I support renaming... and if you checked the older AfD, that was discussed as well. If you support renaming, you should not endorse deletion, but rather renaming and redirecting.   Queerbubbles  | Leave me Some Love   17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keepthe article does talk about something that does bear some cultural significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.105.146 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename This isn't the place to discuss feelings about whether or not the shooting was a criminal act or not. It is clearly notable and continues to be notable. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this article should be kept. It is significant and noteworthy. However, any bias should be avoided and only facts should be discussed. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable due to incident, criminal investigation and trial, possible federal trial, and pending civil litigation. Additional notability from Sharpton's involvement throughout. Flatscan (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename and Keep The incident is definitely notable, but the name should change since the article is about the incident, more than the person. — Chris!  c t 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. I agree that the incident is important. I also agree that Sean Bell is notable for the shooting. I just don't think he's notable for anything else. It seems that most people (including those in support of keeping the article) agree that it should be named after the shooting, not Sean Bell. I like a Natalie's suggestion of "2006 NYPD Shooting," though it could stand to be more detailed. Ideas? Screen stalker (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree to Keep this article. It is an important event in NYPD history where a very respected source of information tells the truth about what happened in a widely talked about issue. Without any biases Wikipedia tells the story how a few brave police officers did their job and had to fight public figures, who's only existance is to keep racism alive, to show that they were in the right. It is important that these facts are up on this extremely reliable source so that this incodent does not become a Rodney King incodent where the facts are disputable because the lack of relaible sources on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.bensimon (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) — Adam.bensimon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * That's certainly a valid opinion and if you can find a NPOV way to show that your opinion aligns with reliable, verifiable sources, then feel free to add that to the article. However, as a matter of debate, I would contest your recollection of events and suggest that it might not accord perfectly with the facts.  Also, its "incident", not "incodent". Protonk (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Sean Bell shooting incident, or something of that nature, that would give a larger overview of the event, the background of the policemen, trial, demonstrations, etc.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename The incident is notable, but the victim is not. Make the article about the shooting, the trial, and any societal effects. p.s. If the article says "a few brave police did their job" then it needs revision to achieve NPOV. Edison (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename per Edison. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Annoyed with fanboys' point above- while the person falls under WP:BLP1E, the event is notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. Not really sure what comment this needs; it's hard to believe that a nomination to actually delete the article was made in good faith. --Delirium (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, rename At least 10 major news outlets decided this was a noteworthy event. The event is notable, but this article should be renamed to Dudeman5685's suggestion.  APK  yada yada  00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, rename My main objection to deleting this article is that it serves a useful purpose.  That might seem a naive objection, but in fact, it speaks to the fundamental reason for ALL the articles in Wikipedia: to provide useful information.  Guidelines about the importance of subjects are helpful, but those who appeal purely to the "policies" as a rationale for deleting this article should consider that the guidelines are not transcendent divine laws, but only best attempts to be helpful.  The fact is that I was glad to find this article because I needed the information it contained.  On the other hand, it is, as others have said, mainly about the shooting of Sean Bell and the subsequent trial, and not a biographical article in the ordinary sense, and it would be not only appropriate, but would improve the article's helpfulness if a word or two were to the title to clarify the subject. "Sean Bell shooting" would be fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Walker (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, rename I really don't understand why this is up for deletion at all. They are talking about shutting down NYC because of this death for crap's sake... isn't that in itself a teensy bit newsworthy??  Just change the name if you must and be done with this inane, disrespectful, waste of time vote on deletion.  And, to those sockpuppets entering multiple delete votes, just what the HELL is YOUR agenda??? Cowicide (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, rename : LOL Right-Cowicide! On another note, I agree, "Sean Bell Shooting" should be the rename of this article.  Valid is the argument that Sean Bell is not otherwise notable.  Also, valid is the argument that this article is NOT biographical, but rather is regarding the incident, and therefore should not be deleted, but renamed.  No other rename or suggestion of "putting this story under the larger scope of 'Police Brutality'"  will do because people WILL search for this specific incident, as user Craig Walker (above) and I did, and they will be searching under the name "Sean Bell".  JNycole (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to "Shooting of Sean Bell" or "Sean Bell shooting incident" ~ Eóin (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved, see LogProtonk (talk) 01:48, 27 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.