Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:13, 7 June 2020

Derek Chauvin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting this at AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4. Please consider whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, keeping in mind WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. The content of the article may be accessed in the history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is a fork of Killing of George Floyd, there is essentially no information in it which isn't in that article. The "Background" and "Involvement in the killing of George Floyd" sections, which make up most of it, were copied and pasted from Killing of George Floyd (without attribution, making this article a copyright violation). The remaining content doesn't offer anything which isn't covered in that article, aside from a few trivial details such as his marital status. Furthermore WP:CRIME says that someone known in connection with a criminal event shouldn't have a standalone article if they can be adequately covered in some other article. That is clearly the case here as all the information in this article is also in Killing of George Floyd. WP:CRIME also advises against having articles on alleged perpetrators of crimes who have not been convicted, here the subject hasn't. Hut 8.5 17:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hut 8.5 As an experienced contributor I am sure you are aware that our deletion policies call upon us to evaluate whether the underlying topic of an article is notable, based on all the available references, not judge it on its current state.
- BLP1E does not bar covering individuals best known for a particular event in a standalone BLP article, when the individual is central to the event, and their is sufficient RS coverage of them. Chauvin is central, and extensively covered in RS.
- Chauvin has had press coverage, prior to the killing. Several other civilians died, in multiple events where he played a role. There is press coverage of those multiple earlier events. There is press coverage of his wife, Mrs Minnesota 2018, calling him a sweet guy. Of course, prior to the video of him killing Floyd went viral, that press coverage would have fallen far short of our 2020 inclusion standards. But the earlier events completely erode assertions that Floyd was an instance of BLP1E.
- You quote a passage from WP:CRIME, "shouldn't have a standalone article if they can be adequately covered in some other article". Well, that is just it. He can't be adequately covered in other articles. Some individuals want to have a redirect to a subsection of Killing of George Floyd#people involved. Previously it redirected to Killing of George Floyd#persons involved, and prior to that someone linked to Killing of George Floyd#police officers. Do you really think it makes sense for the link in George Floyd protests to Derek Chauvin to send readers to a subsection of Killing of George Floyd? Really?
  And what about his wife's divorce proceedings against him? This is also widely reported. Widely reported is that, even though she is out of work, she has waived her right to claim spousal support. Widely reported is that his notoriety has triggered death threats against her. Also reported that there were false reports Chauvin's squad car partner was his wife's brother. His brother-in-law is a police officer, but in the neighouring city of St. Paul
  The earlier disciplinary hearings; his wife's praise of his character; the divorce proceedings, would all be easier to cover, neutrally, and with less risk of original research, in a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are situations in which it's appropriate to delete an article on the basis of its current state. One of those is when it duplicates another article. The only reason it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A10 is the fact that the title is suitable for a redirect. Yes, I do absolutely think it's reasonable to direct the reader to Killing_of_George_Floyd#People_involved, which includes biographical material about the subject and where the rest of the article covers the other aspects of the topic. Any appropriate biographical article will have to include substantial encyclopedic material about the subject which can't be effectively covered in the article about the killing. It's not appropriate to write an article about him just so we can write about his family and his divorce, which is probably a one-liner at most. You are in any case violating BLP by making claims about these non-public figures without sources. If we want to write an article about him it will need to be an actual biography which discusses his life up to the incident and anything significant which happens to him afterwards - something along the lines of Timothy McVeigh. It doesn't look like we can do that, at least not yet. Hut 8.5 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut. No indication, yet, that the subject warrants an stand-alone article. ——Serial^# 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Killing of George Floyd. Like previously stated, Chauvin is only notable for killing George Floyd, so WP:BLP1E applies. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article link currently shows a redirect. To discuss whether this is a valid subject for an article, see the expanded version here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really have a preference whether the biography of Chauvin is on a stand-alone page, or merged into another page. However, the WP:BLP1E policy and the WP:BIO1E guideline suggest having a separate article (not a redirect), whereas WP:CRIME suggests a redirect, and WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests doing whichever is better for the reader's understanding.
- WP:BLP1E has a three-part test: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - this is the requirement everyone focuses on, but it's only the first of three. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - definitely not Chauvin. He is not now, and is unlikely to become, a low-profile individual. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - again, definitely not Chauvin. It was a significant event, his role was substantial, and it was very well documented by multiple videos and like every press outlet in the world at this point. So, BLP1E does not apply, because #2 and #3 are not met.
- WP:BIO1E, part of the WP:BIO subject-specific notability guideline, suggests a stand-alone page: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate..
- The WP:CRIME guideline (also part of WP:BIO) says, for perpetrators: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. I don't think there is any concern with article size at Killing of George Floyd, so it seems WP:CRIME suggests a redirect.
- WP:PAGEDECIDE is another applicable guideline (part of WP:N). It suggests we should do whatever serves the reader best. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're certainly not serving the reader best by presenting the same content in two different places. Passing BIO1E doesn't mean you get to have an article, it just means an article can't be deleted for failing BIO1E. Same for BLP1E. Even if Killing of George Floyd does need to be split up that doesn't mean we get to have a stand-alone article here, because there's only a paragraph of biographical content in there, and that would likely remain even after a split. A standalone article only makes sense if there's a large amount of biographical content which doesn't fit into Killing of George Floyd. Hut 8.5 19:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we are all volunteers here, sometimes what we do is hard work. Working on covering controverial topics requires us to work harder than usual. You are absolutely correct that it is best to avoid having two or more articles duplicate the same material. However, if we keep Derek Chauvin we should make sure we watch out for duplication, and contradiction between it, Killing of George Floyd, and the other related articles, in exactly the same way we do with all the millions of other related articles on the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Here's why: WP:A10: The new article significantly expands on the text about Chauvin in the article about the killing, including background information, information about his arrest, charges and detainment status, and his marriage. WP:BLP1E: The article does not satisfy nr. 3: The event is highly significant and Chauvin's role is substantial, as the catalyst of the whole incident and the following protests and unrest. WP:CRIME: This is one of the, if not THE most documented, talked about and influential crime in the United States since 9/11. Chauvin's involvement is well documented. We have articles about James Holmes (mass murderer) and Dylann Roof that should be deleted if we can't allow an article about Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article about George Floyd now, who is notable only for being killed by Chauvin. It makes no sense to have a separate article about Floyd, but not Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to update the article with newly-released information from Chauvin's personnel file. That is impossible with the current hard protection of the article. Please make the community able to expand the article so that people can make an opinion on an expanded article.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on George Floyd for now, but there is currently a proposed merge discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E /CRIME. To write so much about a suspected criminal (charged but not yet convicted despite the fact there's strong video evidence) is not appropriate for WP. In addition, we don't know how much of that history will be relevant, that will be a factor to be determine in the court case, and if it becomes clear that, say, this guy has a past as interesting as some serial killers (HYPOTHETICAL, I DO NOT KNOW), that might warrant a number of secondary sources that go on about his mental state to give us a reason to have a standalone article. But that won't happen until he's convicted. BLP demands we avoid this until that point. --Masem (t) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles about Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell. We have news about Chauvin's divorce and details about three previous incidents of police brutality and/or officer-invoved shootings that don't belong on Killing of George Floyd. The templates on Killing of George Floyd are schizophrenic. First one wants people to split the article into multiple articles because it's unwieldy, and then two more templates want the split off articles to be merged back with it. And Derek Chavin is a third. There are plenty of articles that have one or two sentences about a person that are kept. There is a rush to delete this that smells biased to me. Kire1975 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Killing of George Floyd per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. He is notable for exactly one event: the killing of George Floyd. His past misconduct, or his marriage, have exactly zero notability. Thus the best way to cover him is in the context of George Floyd. Perhaps if convicted he might warrant a standalone article, but not now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, care to explain further your assertion "His past misconduct, or his marriage, have exactly zero notability" further?

I am concerned that the delete opinnion you left here reflects an unfortunately common misinterpretation of our key policies. We are supposed to keep our personal opinions to ourselves. I think NPOV applies not only to when we add new content to articles, but to when we weigh in in AFD as to whether or not a topic measures up to our standards for notability. Chauvin's notability doesn't rely on my personal opinion he is notable. It doesn't rely on your personal opinion he is not notable. It should rely on the opinions of reliable sources, and, whether you like it or not, they have written about him, in detail. They have written about him beyond his role in Floyd's killing.

We have some special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN. Individuals who hold a Federal office, individuals who win a Nobel Prize, or a Pullitzer, ore were awarded a Victoria Cross we consider notable, even if they would not otherwise measure up to GNG. But most of our BLP articles are about individuals with multiple notability factors, where each of those notability factors, by itself, wouldn't make them notable. For most of our BLP articles we do a kind of notability arithmetic calculation, and add up the notability from all the notability factors.

I am not an RS, you are not an RS. Some tabloids, publications we would not consider RS, have reported on Chauvin. Some of the damaging mis-information comes from them. But that tabloid reporting is drowned out by solid reporting from RS that does not lapse from WP:NOTNEWS.

Is your argument equivalent to saying, "If I were chief editor of the New York Times I would prohibit my reporters from writing anything about Derek Chauvin, other than his specific role in the killing, because I personally, consider that information beneath notice"? But you aren't a newspaper's editor-in-chief, are you? And, even if that were your day job, the wikipedia is not your newspaper. So, shouldn't we ignore your gut feeling, and rely solely on the judgement of actual RS? I suggest those actual RS have established his independent notability, even if you don't like it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with salt - I agree entirely with CaptainEek's sentiment, apart from the relatively minor disagreement that I don't believe a criminal act and conviction for that act are two separate events. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Salt? Isnt salting extraordinary? Care to offer a further explanation for this extraordinary suggestion? Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's extraordinary at all. I think it's likely someone might try to create a standalone article on Chauvin even though the article is a clear BLP1E. I guess what I was trying to say is the redirect should be protected, since I'm not suggesting a deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time there isn't anything about Chauvin that can't be covered by Killing of George Floyd. The marriage stuff is all WP:NOTNEWS. I think SportingFlyer's call for salt is prudent given the circumstances. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect per the above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect There is nothing of any note that can’t be said in Killing of George Floyd#People involved. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Derek Chauvin is currently a (non-working) redirect page, does that mean that the redirect is proposed for deletion? Apokrif (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokrif: This was weird procedurally because it was improperly speedily deleted after the AfD had started, and the DRV, which was speedily closed, said the article should be relisted at AfD, but with the redirect in place. If this is kept, the redirect will be overturned, if this is deleted, the redirect will stay. It's a bit unique. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TheLordOfWikis (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also believe that the above deletion arguments hold enough weight to warrant deletion. BLP1E and CRIME apply here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current events media outlet. I feel that once the dust has settled, then perhaps we can come back to this and revisit. Waggie (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:1E says,

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

So tell me, is does Chauvin likely meet the standard of Haward Brennan? I think clearly he does. I would further argue that The other officers in this event also meet that standard. I think the events here are extremely historically important. Casprings (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Casprings, he might one day. See how many book sources there are in the Brennan article? Guy (help!) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG No books. But the massive volume of coverage from global WP:RS makes him meet the standard, IMO.Casprings (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect — Per Serial Number 54129 & CaptainEek, either option works fine for me. Celestina007 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, I guess retain the Redirect that it already is or something?) - Err, what happened? This isn't a relisting; it's a new nomination. Relisting doesn't dismiss what participants have already said and require it to be said again. At any rate, I'll just copy/paste: This is a very straightforward WP:CRIME matter. ~~Delete instead of merge/redirect because the main article doesn't need any of this content and Derek Chauvin is already a redirect.~~ since we're now talking about that redirect, no reason for this last part. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following this, pinging [non-blocked] participants of the original discussion who haven't already commented here: @Love of Corey, Letcreate123, Steve Quinn, SoWhy, IVORK, and Games of the world: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with what someone said earlier about other incidents of misconduct, etc, but want to add that his profile and central identity will grow as the trial takes place. How did we handle George Zimmerman during this same timeframe post-incident? I'm fine with doing whatever we did then, now, as the circumstances are very similar. My ultimate point is that we can have this argument, but in the coming 6 months we will learn so much more about Chauvin and the trial that this discussion will be moot because he will be notable enough to have his own page by then. Aglo123 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 *'''Delete''' (or, I guess retain the '''Redirect''' that it already is or something?) - Err, what happened? This isn't a relisting; it's a new nomination. Relisting doesn't dismiss what participants have already said and require it to be said again. At any rate, I'll just copy/paste: This is a very straightforward WP:CRIME matter. <s>Delete instead of merge/redirect because the main article doesn't need any of this content and Derek Chauvin is already a redirect.</s> since we're now talking about that redirect, no reason for this last part. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 01:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 :*Following this, pinging [non-blocked] participants of the original discussion who haven't already commented here: {{ping|Love of Corey|Letcreate123|Steve Quinn|SoWhy|IVORK|Games of the world}} &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 01:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - I agree with what someone said earlier about other incidents of misconduct, etc, but want to add that his profile and central identity will grow as the trial takes place. How did we handle [[George Zimmerman]] during this same timeframe post-incident? I'm fine with doing whatever we did then, now, as the circumstances are very similar. My ultimate point is that we can have this argument, but in the coming 6 months we will learn so much more about Chauvin and the trial that this discussion will be moot because he will be notable enough to have his own page by then. [[User:Aglo123|Aglo123]] ([[User talk:Aglo123|talk]]) 05:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)