Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident (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. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Florida Taser incident
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Thoroughly trivial and created in blatant violation of our not-a-newspaper standards. The previous nomination was dominated by people who attempted to argue that it was a huge thing that would always stick around in our collected memory (e.g. "This story will not go away or be forgotten"), but no evidence was presented that such would happen. Everything presently on the article is trivial (e.g. YouTube information on how many hits the video gets) or several-years-old news sources, and the sole piece of coverage I can find in JSTOR is this article, which gives it a single paragraph as part of a discussion about the lack of civility in American culture. To quote the article, the subject of the incident became "an instant, if likely fleeting, celebrity" — this prediction has become true, because no solid sources time-independent of the incident are giving it consistent coverage. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 6 years later, we can look upon this with benefit of hindsight.  It made the news at the time, but the charges are extremely trivial (he got a short probation, less than common everyday crimes like vandalism or DUI).  As far as I can tell it had no impact at all on politics, law enforcement, or the university.  It had so little effect on anything that I don't even think it can be merged.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and it's not a noteworthy event. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's no lasting notable impact to this event and it shouldn't be kept here. Ducknish (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Our policy on what Wikipedia is not says that we should consider the "enduring notability" of events. Coverage of this event was, of course, heaviest in the days and weeks following the incident, but there is nothing unusual about this. This article in the New York Times published in February of 2012, well over four years later, says that video of the incident was responsible for "keeping concerns high" about the safety of tasers. A 2010 article in Wired about a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restricting taser use called the incident "famous". A 2009 NBC News report called the comment by the man tasered an "immortal phrase". Another 2009 NBC News report called this incident the "most famous" video of police use of a taser. Fifteen months after the incident, Time magazine described it in the opening paragraph of their story titled Are Tasers Deadly? That same month, Newsweek/The Daily Beast ran a followup article on the incident. Ten months after the incident, Deseret News ran a story called Are Tasers good tools for police — or deadly force? that said the student had "forever immortalized" the phrase he uttered. John Kerry discussed the incident himself at a public appearance nine months later. Three months after the incident, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations said that the phrase, "Don't tase me, bro" was the most memorable quotation of 2007, and that it was "a symbol of pop culture success", and in its coverage, Reuters UK said it was "a phrase that swept the nation". A book published in 2010 called U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contemporary Reader says that the incident (the only one specifically described in this section of the book) was among several that led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to issue a 9-step strategy for "effective deployment" of tasers and similar devices. A 2009 book called Introduction to Criminal Justice devoted two pages to the incident, plus a mention in the introduction. In Charles Ogletree's 2012 book The Presumption of Guilt: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Race, Class and Crime in America, he says that many African-Americans related to this incident because of memories that tasers were used on Rodney King. It has been five and a half years, and this incident is still being discussed in a wide range of reliable sources. It is also interesting that two editors recommending deletion are using the deprecated "WP:NOTNEWS" shortcut. Of course, Wikipedia has articles on newsworthy events of enduring significance, but the point is that Wikipedia does not function like a newspaper. When an event has been discussed in reliable sources for years, including in serious books, concerns about newspaper type coverage should evaporate.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case I would say the problem isn't lack of sources but a fundamental lack of notability, which was uncertain then but obvious now. Yes, it was an example where a taser was used and it made the news.  Had it been a catalyst for banning police use of tasers, or had the perpetrator parlayed the situation into lasting fame of some sort, then it would be notable or we'd at least have a merge target, but that simply isn't the case.  18 months probation, not even a trial, no lasting effects of any note.  Thousands more notable crimes than this happen every day all over the world.  We could cover them, sure, but that's better left to newspapers. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia, Andrew, we say that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that it meets the general notability guideline. You have acknowledged, Andrew, that there is no problem with a lack of sources, which I've shown have continued their coverage for five years. Then why doesn't this topic meet the GNG? You seem to be treating the topic as a criminal act that resulted in 18 months probation. The reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this event over the past five years do not discuss that aspect of the incident. It is the use of the taser in this type of circumstance that the reliable sources discuss, not the plea bargain or the probation. As I pointed out, one book says that this incident, and other less notable incidents, motivated the International Association of Chiefs of Police to issue a strategy document on tasers and similar technologies. The recognizable phrase "Don't tase me, bro" has been used in hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources over the years. That's notability.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most murders, armed robberies, and so on are covered by news outlets and thus technically meet the letter of the GNG, but generally only the ones with lasting historic notability or landmark cases are covered in Wikipedia because routine crimes are considered out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia. (see WP:PERP, WP:CRIME, WP:BLP1E) If your average murder is out of scope, I'd say something like this, with no jail time, trial, or lasting effects for anyone, is a good deal less notable than any more serious crime.  You are free to your opinion though and it's okay if we agree to disagree on this. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Starblind's comparison here to other "non-historic" moments reported by the media. This is, in my opinion, an event that is already faded from memory for the most point. It doesn't seem to have any sort of real lasting impact that I would consider to make an event like this notable. Ducknish (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS, yes the event was reported in the news, but as WP:EVENT points out an event should have some lasting significance and I am not seeing that.  LGA talk  edits   08:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, hasn't been notable for a very long time.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comprehensive reasons stated by Cullen, especially those highlighting the enduring notability of the subject. News events often become historical events when viewed retrospectively. It's not that hard to find a policy or guideline to support any desired outcome, but I think we would do well to avoid slavish adherence to rules like WP:NOT, when their application likely impedes the greater goal of building an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. - MrX 02:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the incident is missing impact and its notability is questionable, I think that the overall topic, accounting for the video and "Don't tase me, bro!", is notable.
 * WP:Notability (events) (WP:EVENT, guideline):
 * Lasting effects, Geographical scope: I concede that there is a lack of real-world impact. The article's editors considered the problem at Talk:University of Florida Taser incident/Archive 2, back in December 2007.
 * Depth of coverage, Duration of coverage: The incident received solid newspaper-level coverage. The coverage was most intense immediately after the event. Most of the ongoing coverage was in the local The Gainesville Sun or the University of Florida student newspaper, The Independent Florida Alligator, but there was a follow-up by the Associated Press. Today interviewed Meyer a month after the incident. The Washington Post ran a "where are they now?" on Meyer in April 2011.
 * Diversity of sources: The incident received national coverage in the U.S., and there are refs from The Times and The Sydney Morning Herald.
 * WP:NOTNEWS is a soft redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (policy). I think that the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:EVENT's may or may not be notable and escape WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.
 * There are three pieces to the topic: the confrontation itself; the video, which went viral; and "Don't tase me, bro!" The current article is somewhat of a WP:Coatrack that focuses on the incident, which may have had the least impact.
 * Disclosure: I used to edit the article, although less frequently through early 2010.
 * Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. It's all newspapers that are connected in time to the incident.  No solid coverage throughout history since then.  Not a historic incident and thus not encyclopedic.  Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, did you bother to review the sources I brought forth? Newspaper sources over a period of years? Magazine follow-ups long after the event? Three book sources, years later, including one that credited this incident with influencing a major police organization to issue a recommendation on tasers? I am curious about what you thought of those?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That there was any direct coverage after the probation agreement is somewhat noteworthy. You missed my point about the incident alone versus the overall topic, and Cullen328 provided substantial sources around "Don't tase me, bro!" Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cullen328. I think the fact that a Presidential candidate was involved should be brought to bear here.  Automatic  Strikeout   ( T  •  C ) 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Don't Delete Me Bro. Its a cultural touchstone..--Milowent • hasspoken  04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I use Wikipedia as source of first resort. I know that Wiki will have something on whatever I am looking for. I still remember this plea-comment for all those years ago. I did not recall who said it so I looked it up. Be what you purport to be - The information provider of first resort for inquiring minds. Do not force us inquiring minds to Examiner.Patnclaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, why is this being put up for deletion now . . . in March 2013? The fact that so many people remember the "Don't tase me bro" incident from 2007 shows that this is a notable moment in American politics and culture.  Besides the fact that it spawned the catchphrase "Don't tase me bro."  OGBranniff (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I am disturbed by the number of single purpose accounts here. I see two fundamental positions, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:LASTING. Because Wikipedia is not offering a first-hand account nor is the event a WP:ROUTINE event, technically WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. NOTNEWS does state that if it was a news story it can still be included on Wikipedia as long as it was not routine and had lasting effects. The incident is part of the taser controversy, regularly cited, and "don't tase me bro" became an internet meme. I largely feel the keep camp has shown LASTING and thus avoids NOTNEWS. Mkdw talk 23:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Appearing in books is the very antithesis of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.  The nomination implies that this needs to be "a huge thing that would always stick around in our collected memory", but WP:NTEMP states that once a topic is notable, it will always be notable.  Since this topic massively passes WP:GNG, the only reason not to cover it is because it fails WP:NOT.  As to whether or not this topic fails WP:Routine, I don't consider as routine an event involving a presidential candidate's apology, 6.7 million YouTube views, and an Internet meme described in a book the next year as "the wildly popular phrase of 2007".
 * Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect There is important, cited detail in the article but it needs editing and reducing as much of it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Should become part of a small section of another article such as University of Florida?  DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * David, who joins wikipedia merely to vote in a slew of AfDs? And then leave such ambiguous comments?  When books have duly recorded this event as highly notable, what are we to do with your gobbledygook?--Milowent • hasspoken  14:33, 18 March 2013 (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.