Content deleted Content added
m →2015 Texas pool party incident: typo |
→2015 Texas pool party incident: expand my reasons |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:: '''Comment''' - Kendrick7, I see what you are saying but I've been watching and documenting the TV news here in Dallas and they haven't even mentioned the pool event in a few days. But I don't think you are concern with that but trying to promote it as an example of racism to further your own racism agenda. The racism claims of the pool party are in the air as the witnesses to it are friends of Tatiana Rhodes as well as the ones helping her with the event. It was not a sanctioned event by the HOA (reserving the pool) but even then the parties are limited to 20 people max. And that was something Tatiana did not care about due to her promoting the event all over social media, hiring a DJ and was using the event to sell tickets for another "Make it Clap" event. There is way more to the story than initially reported. Will the local news do a follow up to it, Channel 11 has tried but cannot get Tatiana side to it regarding the event or her "Make it Clap" business ventures. Seems she has gone into hiding. [[User:Heyyouoverthere|Heyyouoverthere]] ([[User talk:Heyyouoverthere|talk]]) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
:: '''Comment''' - Kendrick7, I see what you are saying but I've been watching and documenting the TV news here in Dallas and they haven't even mentioned the pool event in a few days. But I don't think you are concern with that but trying to promote it as an example of racism to further your own racism agenda. The racism claims of the pool party are in the air as the witnesses to it are friends of Tatiana Rhodes as well as the ones helping her with the event. It was not a sanctioned event by the HOA (reserving the pool) but even then the parties are limited to 20 people max. And that was something Tatiana did not care about due to her promoting the event all over social media, hiring a DJ and was using the event to sell tickets for another "Make it Clap" event. There is way more to the story than initially reported. Will the local news do a follow up to it, Channel 11 has tried but cannot get Tatiana side to it regarding the event or her "Make it Clap" business ventures. Seems she has gone into hiding. [[User:Heyyouoverthere|Heyyouoverthere]] ([[User talk:Heyyouoverthere|talk]]) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::*Yikes, it's news to me that I have a "racism agenda". You seem to admit the subject is notable given that it has been widely discussed. So let's go on having that discussion, rather than one side trying to silence the other vie the AFD process, OK? -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]</sup> 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
:::*Yikes, it's news to me that I have a "racism agenda". You seem to admit the subject is notable given that it has been widely discussed. So let's go on having that discussion, rather than one side trying to silence the other vie the AFD process, OK? -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]</sup> 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The move to delete this article is political in nature. An editor first performed multiple edits, each with the effect of softening or minimizing what occurred. Then the same editor added a not-notable template. After some back-and-forth, the not-notable template was removed. Then the same editor again performed multiple edits (on the article he or she felt was not notable), each again moving the article in the direction of "nothing happened here." Why would someone persist in making substantive edits to an article he or she believed was not worth inclusion? I don't see how it makes sense to take both positions at the same time. "This article needs to be improved" -- "This article should not be in Wikipedia." The entire sequence of actions demonstrates a violation of the spirit (if not perhaps the letter) of NPOV. |
Revision as of 04:40, 15 June 2015
2015 Texas pool party incident
- 2015 Texas pool party incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:ONEEVENT, WP:WI1E, WP:BLP1E for the officer, and WP:NOTNEWS. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - seems like a way of restoring the quickly deleted article on the officer who resigned. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - well-referenced article on topic with significant continued coverage by multiple independent sources. Vipul (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - a news event not a notable event. The DPD shooting of James Harper in 2012 received far more media attention and protester involvement at the time. So far the Dallas media has moved on to other things in Dallas than the pool party. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: An ongoing event. Officer Casebolt resigned, and it seems as if the department is reacting relatively well. There is no "thing" to describe yet, because it isn't over. If it is over, then it is a sad, disturbing, and too common incident of overuse of police force that blends into the many others. Fails notability, plus Wikipedia is not the evening news. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: the big one for me here is WP:EFFECT. Thus far, there is no indication that this event will meet a 10 year test, or even a two month test for that matter. The WP:BLP issues related to the case are also significant. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Per everyone else. Everything is already starting to cool down and there's no indication this event will come back as a common reference. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for not meeting this criterion from WP:NEVENT: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep at least for a little longer. As much as these may be not uncommon (very much depending on definition), episodes like these seem to trigger new ones (as they have done in the past) and could potentially spark an even more serious event in the near future. If that were to occur, it is useful to be able to refer back to content like this. It's too early to call off as a single isolated event (particularly with the media coverage and spread it received) and to say it has no effect or notability. That could be done in a few months. It's a decent and objective page as it stands in the meantime. From WP Notability: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." and also states "Don't rush to delete articles". Global aviator (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This is a part of the ongoing saga of how White people react when Black people use their pool.[1] It should be kept as a data point in American race relations. -- Kendrick7talk 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Kendrick7talk 03:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, merge, redirect or move - This incident is already discussed briefly at McKinney, Texas. The article has multiple reliable references, and for that reason, should be kept, merged/redirected to McKinney, Texas, or moved to McKinney Police Department (Texas). --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid rationale for deletion. "Single event" arguments (ONEEVENT, WI1E, BLP1E) only apply to articles that are biographies of a person, or perhaps articles about things that were involved in the event. By its nature "notable only for one event, so redirect to the article on the event" cannot apply to an article on the event itself. "No lasting effect" arguments (NOTNEWS, EFFECT, NEVENT) cannot, by their nature, automatically apply to articles on very recent events. In any event, the guidelines say "lasting effect" is a grounds for notability, not a mandatory requirement for notability, and that very recent events can be notable. In any event, I think this event is likely to receive lasting coverage. In any event, since this could be redirected/merged per Jax0677, it isn't eligible for deletion (WP:ATD). James500 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable in the long saga of racism and police violence in the United States. Received significant international coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with James500 that -1E guidelines does not apply to events. Plus, the latest reliable source I see from GNews search is merely 20 hours back (by The Guardian), suggesting the influx of RS attention is yet to be stale, and we cannot conclude definitively that this event has no lasting effect to be unfit for WP as of now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: I read through the article and it seems that it was a news event that blew up and then died down.It appeared on my news for a day or two and then disappeared. Is it truly notable? Will people remember it one or two or six months from now? A year from now? Or are people wanting to include it to forward their own agenda be it the hatred for police since a police officer was involved or racism and their wanting to include it as a "see I told you the police hate black people" of which seems to be the norm is many a news story these days. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:EFFECT. The only lasting effect of this incident is that a police officer and high school principal are no longer employed. The news cycle has already died down and is mostly focusing on decreasingly interesting reactions to this event. One of the keep votes above makes the fine point that this should be "kept as a data point in American race relations." I couldn't agree more. It's a data point in a much larger story. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- So you're agreeing with me, but not really? Sorry, but this is really a thing in American culture, see: Wiltse, Jeff (June 10, 2015). "America's swimming pools have a long, sad, racist history: They've long been contested spaces where we express prejudices that otherwise remain unspoken". Washington Post. This is indeed part of a WP:LASTING trend. -- Kendrick7talk 01:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Kendrick7, I see what you are saying but I've been watching and documenting the TV news here in Dallas and they haven't even mentioned the pool event in a few days. But I don't think you are concern with that but trying to promote it as an example of racism to further your own racism agenda. The racism claims of the pool party are in the air as the witnesses to it are friends of Tatiana Rhodes as well as the ones helping her with the event. It was not a sanctioned event by the HOA (reserving the pool) but even then the parties are limited to 20 people max. And that was something Tatiana did not care about due to her promoting the event all over social media, hiring a DJ and was using the event to sell tickets for another "Make it Clap" event. There is way more to the story than initially reported. Will the local news do a follow up to it, Channel 11 has tried but cannot get Tatiana side to it regarding the event or her "Make it Clap" business ventures. Seems she has gone into hiding. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The move to delete this article is political in nature. An editor first performed multiple edits, each with the effect of softening or minimizing what occurred. Then the same editor added a not-notable template. After some back-and-forth, the not-notable template was removed. Then the same editor again performed multiple edits (on the article he or she felt was not notable), each again moving the article in the direction of "nothing happened here." Why would someone persist in making substantive edits to an article he or she believed was not worth inclusion? I don't see how it makes sense to take both positions at the same time. "This article needs to be improved" -- "This article should not be in Wikipedia." The entire sequence of actions demonstrates a violation of the spirit (if not perhaps the letter) of NPOV.