Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.72.206.28 (talk) at 18:20, 21 September 2007 (→Third arbitrary section break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

University of Florida Taser incident

University of Florida Taser incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:NOT#NEWS. The University of Florida police overreacted to a borderline heckler at a John Kerry speech. Footage was shown on television because it contained the memorable line "Don't tase me, bro!" and some print sources ran stories, but this has no lasting, encyclopedic interest. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Whether or not you feel this is something that should be deleted, there's really no reason. It is an event. It happened. It's now part of history. There isn't a limited amount of space that this article is going to take up. It doesn't matter whether you agree with what happened or not- YOU CAN'T DELETE HISTORY! And the fact that it has made such a huge impact and had so much media coverage is the reason it is a noteworthy article.

If you don't want to read it, don't go searching for it. It's as simple as that! ~Nini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.133.1 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" This is a piece of history that should not be wiped from the public's consciousness. Free speech is still free in most of Americans' minds although politicians and police have tried to take it away from us. Why weren't Meyer's questions answered? Even more, why was Meyer dragged off, tasered, and arrested for asking them? Kerry is a public official and the least of all rights we have to expect when dealing with one is that we be allowed to question authority, however unfashionable it may be these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.20.61 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First, 'Footage was shown on television because it contained the memorable line "Don't tase me, bro!"' is not the reason I'm interested. In fact stating that this is the only reason there is interest is overreaching...and insulting. Obiter you do not speak for everyone...clearly! This is a current event of some interest; obviously. Stating that the line "Don't tase me, bro!" is the only reason there is interest and thereby qualifies the article for deletion is beyond ridiculous. Second, if the two videos are watched and listened to carefully one will quickly realize that everything stated in the article as of this point in time is accurate. In fact one can clearly hear an officer threat to tase Meyer before he begs not to be tased. Third, POV tags should NEVER be thrown without a reason being given. William (Bill) Bean 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I didn't add the POV tag to the article. Nor have I commented on the article's accuracy or who was "right" in this incident. You obviously have me confused with someone else. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Where did I say YOU added the tag Obiter? Please point that out. What I'm saying is that the reason you give for killing the article is not the reason I'm interested in it. Further, I'm stating that you don't speak for me. That should be pretty clear. Perhaps you should work on your reading for comprehension skills. Just a suggestion. William (Bill) Bean 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you threw up your comment out of order at the top of the list, immediately after the nomination statement, it was logical to infer that it was a direct response to it. I'm befuddled by your assertion that I don't speak for you. I've never claimed to, nor, AFAICR, have I ever interacted with you before. Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly make a lot of assumptions. "Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so." Obvious? Since it is highly unlikely that you read minds I can only assume that you are jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. Shocking! What is obvious to me is that the people who are having a problem with this article do not know how to follow proper procedure. Beyond my faux pas at putting my vote at the top of the list rather than the bottom I do know two things with total certainty. When an article is tagged for POV a reason must be given. When an article is nominated for deletion that nomination should appear where the entire community can find it. Otherwise both are meaningless; for obvious reason. FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE!!! William (Bill) Bean 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel this is a conversation I need to continue. I will simply point out (again) that the nomination was indeed posted to the afd log for September 19 by the TWINKLE script, which does this automatically. This is because is was nominated at 4:06 Greenwich Mean Time on that date. You couldn't find it because (as you said) that you looked in the log for September 18. Even though it was still the 18th where you lived, it was already the 19th in other parts of the world. Do you understand this now? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop with the "assumptions" and it will end. Do I get this now? No I'm too obtuse! Give me a slight break here. My ONLY concern is proper procedure. That is it! Now is there anything else you want to make "obvious" about me or are you through playing the passive aggressive game? William (Bill) Bean 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the Kent State shootings of our era, a demonstration of excessive police state force against students massively reported in the media. It is also reminiscent of the Rodney King beatings. Ejeder 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This story is meaningful from several angles: the passivity of Sen. John Kerry, former candidate for U.S. President, the forebodings of the beginning of a police state in America, the loss of free speech, historically one of America's most treasured traits, and with all the video evidence, this story is not going away. This event may stand the test of time, much like the murder of four students at Kent State University during the Vietnam War.--RuthStar 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let the facts be presented as the vision of Wikipedia allows for. This event is clearly of interest beyond news and internet video --for anyone wishing to research contemporary issues in free speech in the college system of the U.S. 75.35.23.193 07:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Benzl[reply]
  • Support/Delete I agree. Already, we've had 1 user (not saying any names), going through and removing hidden notes, and people referring to the prankster as "douchebag". A delete is what this article needs. [Tyler] (talk/contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Huge story, of relevance and interest to the American and world public, and which users will come here looking for. This story will not go away or be forgotten, and thus merits coverage in our encyclopedia. Badagnani 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're incorrect. This is a rare example of use of force with a Taser on a college campus, against a student asking a question at a forum, something that doesn't happen often and raises questions about the use of force (specifically with an electro-shock weapon) in the United States. As such, it is a very high-profile example of the Electroshock weapon controversy and not to treat it would leave an illogical lacuna. Badagnani 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting event, during the election campaign, may spark debate about policing in the USA. I'm sure much worse happens every day, but this case is particular because there was a violent reaction, a will to censor political critique. A peaceful political opposer was tortured by electrical shock until he accepted to wear handcuffs and be arrested for no reason. This is a rare happening in the USA, normally political censorship and intimidation is more discreet. It's an interesting turning point, especially as it was ordered by the democrats who often oppose the heavy handed way the Republicans have of dealing with problems. Democrats have often campaigned for the use of tasers instead of guns, and gun control in general, this gives an interesting insight on how they may be planning to use them. Jackaranga 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. It's in the news right now, but it's unlikely that it will have lasting historic importance. And now we apparently have the danger the article will turn into a coatrack after the rest of us have forgotten about it next week. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, this is a NN event. Just because lots of people watch it on YouTube does not make it notable. meshach 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a great deal more than a "popularity of viral video" issue. First amendment rights, use of excessive force, student rights, and broadcast rights can all be seen in this article. Though there have not been many reported incidents of campus police use of excessive force, there have been other cases as well. I can see the article being incorporated into another article that deals with free speech, student rights, use of force etc., but for now it should stand. William (Bill) Bean 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is much more than a story about a prankster that loves attention. Using violence to put an end to what amounts to disorderly conduct is rather disturbing. It won't be long before this story is lost in the clutter of the ever changing news sites. At least here, we'll have a chance to view this story to its natural end. This is not always the case when relying on broadcast/cable news.Alecquaid 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. No encyclopedic longevity. - Crockspot 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS - time will tell this event to be without lasting significance. If something notable emerges and there is more significance, a new article can be written with the benefit of more hindsight. Dlabtot 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is classic WP:NOT#NEWS MarkBul 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, AfD seems to have died down. I still stand by my delete. This will end becoming a hatrack soon [Tyler] (talk/contribs) 05:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very notable story right now. Keeping and closing off edits for the time being until we see how impactful it really is may be the way to go User:Edgecution03 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Dlabtot's statement. This is not notable, and if it somehow turns into the root cause of a major policy change, then the article can be re-created. This kid was being pulled out for disruption the same way a heckler would be thrown out of a comedy act, and the police used vastly excessive force. This sort of thing happens so much these days that police have a reputation for it, especially in certain communities but even in general. There was no lasting injury. A couple of years ago, University of Central Florida students were tailgating, and there was an altercation in which an undercover UCF officer had his gun drawn. An Orlando cop was in the area, and due to a lack of communication between the two police forces, the Orlando uniformed cop shot and killed the undercover UCF cop who had drawn his gun. Guess what? This story does not have an article, nor even a mention anymore anywhere in Wikipedia (no, this is not supposed to be a police brutality example, just an example of notability). Mbarbier 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' "Um" is not a proper way to start a sentence; just for future reference. Whether or not an article is created and kept is not up to you. It is a rightfully a community decision. Stating your opinion that "rightly" does not qualify for this article is all fine and good, but you do not speak for everyone. I'll be happy to remind you of this "sad" fact as often as necessary until you get it. I can see that it might be often. Finally, flagging an article NPOV without giving cause is in and of itself POV. I could also be considered vandalism. I strongly suggest you refrain from doing that in future. Your talk page indicates this is not the first or even second time you've done this. William (Bill) Bean 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Not#News -- best handled at Wikinews:Student_questioning_Senator_Kerry_is_tasered. – Zedla 06:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badagnani. --Itub 08:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a news story, but it's not only a news story. There are enough references to it out there that, as Badagnani said, someone who missed all the coverage in 2007 may come upon a mention of it a year or a decade from now and want to know more. I don't agree with Tyler Warren that we should dump an article if people could look up the information elsewhere on the Web. We don't do original research, so most of Wikipedia's content is available elsewhere on the Web, and the rest is available in libraries. JamesMLane t c 09:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very significant event, not just a news article. Someone could want to read this article months/years from now. Connör (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JamesMLane. Darksun 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why the hell would it be deleted? - mnuez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.148.23 (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not Wikinews. --ElKevbo 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just one day since the event's occurrence, and this article has already been nominated for deletion. Amazing. Why on earth such a rush to delete??? Evidently some editors are blessed with psychic powers, able to determine that a month or a year from now this story will have been forgotten, and is thus of no lasting value -- and accordingly, not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Or perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe they have access to that time-travel vehicle from Back to the Future. If so, I'd like to at least see some sort of physical evidence -- you know, a cancelled check or something like that. :)

Ahem. In all seriousness, this nomination is based on nothing more than a personal view that supposedly "minor" incidents of police abuse, where the victim wasn't maimed or killed -- aren't deserving of attention. That might be a valid argument -- if we were talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. But this sort of thing is not supposed to take place here in the United States. So unless it turns out that it was all staged -- nothing more than some sort of "performance art" on the part of both the student and the police -- it should be considered intrinsically worthy of documenting here on Wikipedia. But wait... that would be notable in itself, wouldn't it?! (And by the way, let's not forget that most online newspapers don't keep their articles online permanently.) Cgingold 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. At the moment, this is a major event, with plenty of non-trivial secondary coverage by major news organizations. Revisit it in 6 months and, if by then it's no longer considered major then it can be merged with the applicable articles. I have to express concern that some of the arguments above (on both sides of the issue) cross the line of WP:NPOV and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23skidoo 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree wholly with this viewpoint. Any developments in the story will likely not be addressed by national news outlets, so at least for now, wikipedia can serve as a comprehensive account of the event. It can be reviewed again in six months, and then nominated then. --Asarkees 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First arbitrary section break

  • Keep -- how can you assume so quickly that it does not have long-lasting encyclopedic significance? Surely we need to wait a while and see how it plays out to determine that. In the meantime, this clearly satisfies the first criterion of WP:BIO -- subject of multiple, independent, reliable published reports. Dylan 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of cases of police brutality or some similar article due to recentism.... There is no telling that this event will have any actual historical impact. When it does beyond the initial media hype (as with all passing events), then perhaps a stand-alone article is warranted. It is way too early to determine the long-lived impact of this, and a case should be proven to keep it (other than to avoid deletion), not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it does. Read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTE -- the long-term historical significance has not been established for this. I was published in a few newspaper articles, so maybe I'll be a big deal someday -- let's create an article on me, shall we? This is not evidenced to have far-reaching impact -- it's just the topic of the week as far as anyone can tell. Not even the I-35W Mississippi River bridge has its own article about all the national press that it received. It didn't stay in the national scope forever, and there's no evidence that this will, too. I don't want to blank mention of the incident from Wikipedia, but it needs to be more concise (less WikiNews) and placed in a broader article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the massive media coverage more than establishes notability. As for the "performance art" argument, if it turns out that this was all staged, in my mind this does not diminish notability. I mean, if this was staged, it is probably one of the most successful (in terms of media exposure) acts of performance art ever; such an event -- a student successfully creating a scene that captures global media attention and provokes a "serious" national discussion regarding excessive force used by police and freedom of speech -- would perhaps be even more notable than a tasering incident standing alone. Interestingstuffadder 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No question there is censorship in the United States, and also there are those who would censor any mention of this censorship, as evidenced by the sprinkling of delete votes here. But, sorry, it's a little too late to "keep a lid" on this one now; even the BBC has reported on it. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't there an entry for this nomination in the September 18, 2007 nomination for deletion list? Damned hard to discuss a nomination like this, in the broader community, if no one knows where to comment on it. William (Bill) Bean 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SOFIXIT already. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The person who threw the tag should fix it or the tag should be removed. William (Bill) Bean 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already listed at the log for 19 September. Just because it was September 18 in the United States when it was nominated does not mean it was September 18 everywhere else in the world. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Keep Edited to add: per 494 news article about the event to be found at Google News search [1] and 1.2 million views of the YouTube video of the incident. It is offensive to compare a publicity seeking student (perhaps the only white guy in this millenium who would call a black cop "Bro") who gets tasered by the police in their attempts to remove him when he stays at the microphone too long during a question and answer session, with four students going about their business at a university being shot dead by the National Guard, or with a young lady being crushed by bulldozers when she puts her body on the line to prevent homes being demolished, or with a man stopped for speeding and beaten half to death because of his race. Go to a political event, a town council meeting, a stockholders meeting, or any other forum and seize the microphone, refuse to yield it after asking a question, and you will likely be removed, by force. The force may be taser, mace, or just arm twisting, but you will eventually be carried out. That said, this is one of those stories which might or might not prove to be encyclopedic. We have the philosphy "notability is permanent" but so far this is just a news story, and per WP:NOT#NEWS it may be deleted. Our newshungry 24/7 newschannels take any titillating video footage and run it around the clock for a couple of days, and every paper runs lurid stories to try and coax coins out of someone's pocket at the news stand. This is not "Currenteventspedia." For that, see Wikinews. People wanting to look up this news story 2 years from now can check the NY Times online files. The news editors are not trying to choose enyclopedic stories. "Notability is permanent" implies that "only things with enduring notability should have articles." See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS which distinguishes between the encyclopedic and the merely "newsworthy." We might have a philosophy of creating an article about a newsworthy (but posibly not encyclopically notable event) and then later deleting it if coverage rapidly drops off, which is what I prefer. In such a case, our initial impression of notability was mistaken. If it has no enduring effect on society (such as laws passed, defeat of a political candidate, regime change at a college, new rules for campus police using tasers) it can be deleted later. Or in accord with "permanent notability" we can wait and recreate the article if it proves to have enduring importance. Who can say at this point what its long term effect will be? At least the story is appropriately about the incident and not the non-notable person. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep My guess is that there will be something else about this case that cements its notability, but my crystal ball isn't working very well. Saying that this should be covered at Wikinews is cute, but nobody actually reads Wikinews (I came here, looking for an article called Andrew Meyer; I haven't visited Wikinews in months—it is usually hours behind Wikipedia in getting news-like updates.) dcandeto 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This incident might not be the Kent State of our time, but it is certainly newsworthy, particularly in the context of comparable incidents of police over-reaction in recent history (the UCLA taser incident, the Seattle WTO riots) that all are Wiki articles ApolloRPL 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - This should not be deleted the day after it happened. Wait until the incident settles down, see what comes of it, and then reconsider it for deletion. The fact that it was even nominated for deletion this quickly is suspect. Digitiki 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This article isn't about the student; it's about the incident, which is ongoing. It involved a US Senator, has been widely reported on by news outlets both online and offline, and has so far resulted in at least one investigation by the University of Florida. It's therefore pretty notable. The incident will surely be mentioned in Kerry's and the University of Florida's articles, so it's best just to link to its own page where the full incident can be explained.--Gloriamarie 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the keep rationales that I am seeing here are based on the fact that this is a "major news event". This does not address the fact that, by policy, Wikipedia is not a news blotter. I am also seeing rationales that this story seems to support other collateral theories, which amounts to original research, which is also against policy. I have also seen at least one contributor who's first edit was to this AfD, which is suspicious in and of itself. I would hope that the closing admin will give these rationales their appropriate weight (ie., no weight at all), when determining consensus. This is beginning to look like the Zeitgeist the Movie AfD. - Crockspot 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As of now. This may turn into a big deal depending on what happens with the officers and the investigation. But as of now, delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. - Rjd0060 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple reliable sources.
  • Keep: Widespread media coverage, multiple sources, significant topic. Xizer 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very notable news event that is an example of a broader trend of Campus Law Enforcement violence, see UCLA_Taser_incident, the event has caused widespread campus protest and will quite likely involve legal response. Further it happened during a question and answer with a U.S. Senator, the setting itself adds weight. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you think that the tasering of students is less important for an encyclopaedia than MediaWiki or any of the other random naval-gazing pages that you have, then you lot are all even more circular than I thought. If you are going to insist on notability then half the stuff has to go, e.g. every episode of a sci-fi show has a page for heavens sake!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.234.82 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : Andrew Meyer may be a goofball but the incident showed unacceptable police brutality. Tasering someone for being a nuisance is a sinister development. It is a record of what the police do to those who dissent. The phrase : "Don't tase me, bro" has entered the lexicon of American dissenters. The article must be kept. Tovojolo 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Too recent an event for an article. Wait a month or two so we can gain some perspective on the event and its impact and then recreate. At the moment, it is clearly NEWS. Blueboar 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop wasting time with trying to delete things that happen to pertain to recent events - nothing in WP:NOT#NEWS supports deleting an article like this. Nothing there compels us to delete anything about an important event. It is merely a reminder that we don't need an article on every single homicide or traffic accident.
This story reaches beyond that. It touches on issues related to free speech vs. creating a public nuisance. Police brutality vs. maintaining order. It also touches upon long-standing sentiment (misplaced in my view) by a minority of the US electorate the Republicans are somehow "disenfranchising" people's vote.
Just because it is a recent event does not mean it is a news story. Some people actually thought we should delete Virginia Tech massacre because of WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not as big a waste of time as that effort was, but the same principle applies. Recent events can and should have a perfectly viable encyclopedia article.
This article complies with all Wikipedia policies and it is a far more useful reference (to give just one example) than any number of articles on minor British nobility who are someone "notable" because they were born into a bizarre caste system. Johntex\talk 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the event has already become highly notable. The fact that it concerns police harrassment of a university student in a university hall in the USA when he was asking about issues such as the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities and the Movement to impeach George W. Bush to a former candidate for president of the USA makes it likely to remain notable in the long term. Whether or not it is correct that the 2004 US pres election was rigged, and whether or not it is morally/legally/politically justified to impeach Bush are POVs, but it is NPOV to say that these are questions concerning one of the most powerful people on this planet. The fact that someone asking questions which are implicitly critical of this extremely powerful person got jumped on by police in the supposedly academic setting of a university lecture room makes it unlikely that the notability could drop. Boud 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important issue on the state of our police force, and on the right to freedom of speech. As a college student and as the editor of a newspaper that is covering this event, this page has helped me find links, sources, and facts. This is about a student being treated with unnecessary force while exercising his right to freedom of speech and his right to peaceably assemble on Constitution Day, of all things. The fact that some are tired of the quote, "Don't tase me, Bro!" does not make this issue unimportant.--Manda babylon 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disturbed to hear that you use Wikipedia to research your journalistic work, and it is patently POV to assume that he was tazed for exercising his "freedom of speech". He was tazed because he was running aroung the hall being disruptive, pushing cops, and resisting his detainment. Tasers and pepper spray are used to subdue combative detainees, rather than risk hurting him or the officers by forcing him to submit through muscle power or a knightstick. Better to be tased or sprayed than end up in traction. I saw the video, he was running around like a fool, and he is lucky that he didn't get seriously injured. All of these arguments run counter to what this project is all about. It isn't a soapbox for radical students to "stick it to the man", it's an encyclopedia. - Crockspot 18:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crockspot, your characterization that he was disruptive, running around like a fool, etc. is your personal opinion. I saw the same videos and I think he did none of those things. You want to delete the article because of your own POV.
As for Manda babylon using Wikipedia for his journalistic work, there's nothing wrong with that. He used it to find links, sources, and facts which he could verify himself. Nbauman 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you go. Two opposing POVs do not necessarily equal NPOV. The guy obviously took a lot more steps around the hall than most people are allowed to take when the police want to detain them. I think they were very generous with him. As for using Wikipedia to find reliable sources, true, it is good for that. I guess I was also taking into account the POV that this journalist was expressing. If the view expressed above is repeated in his/her news reporting, then I would have a difficult time giving that reporting much credibility, as it would be obviously biased. - Crockspot 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this article is important and suitable for WP whether or not Meyer's demeanor was appropriate, and whether or not the police were right to arrest him or taser him. Those are the issues that people are debating. You're trying to remove the debate from WP because you believe in one side. Nbauman 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comment?) I live in Bristol in the UK and it had an article in today's paper here. 86.137.127.139 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's probably Bush's fault that Kerry didn't jump in and start punching cops, no? I think I have to walk away from this discussion. My eyes are starting to glaze over. - Crockspot 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His non-reaction makes it notable? Aside from not making sense, this is factually inaccurate. Kerry tried to address some of Meyer's questions after he was cut off, even though Meyer wasn't listening and was drowning him out. 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Kerry could easily have intervened; he had the microphone. He could have said, to the campus cops, "Hey! Wait a minute! This is America, and the First Amendment says people can ask questions of Senators. Let the man go." Instead, he said nothing about brutality toward a student who asked him embarrassing questions, in a scene reminiscent of Red China or the old Soviet Union, and which lost him a certain amount of support from those whoi supported him in his run for the Presidency. Then he said he had no idea the student was arrested or tasered, making him the only person in the hall whose powers of observation were so impaired. Edison 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an important incident, for those of us who believe in free speech. For those of us who don't believe in free speech, it may not be important, but they shouldn't censor Wikipedia for the rest of us. The very fact that people are so divided about it shows that it is a watershed conflict about censorship, and people will cite it forever. Cases like this go through the courts for years, and people will want to look up the background facts about it during that time. In addition, I found that the Wikipedia article had a very well-selected collection of links when a Google search gave me thousands of mostly-repetitive links, so I want to keep it simply because it's so useful. Nbauman 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As an example of how good this article is, it has a link to a Fox News story with the only comment I could find by two lawyers, discussing the reasons why he could or could not prevail on the legal issues. Nbauman 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it's censorship not to include it in Wikipedia is that most of the people who argue for its deletion are arguing that it's not important because they don't approve of his demeanor or of what he was trying to do. Those who give greater importance to the First Amendment believe the abuse is important and the article is important. Those who give greater importance to being polite, to not annoying the majority of people and to following authority and the police believe the abuse is not important and the article is not important. People are arguing for its deletion based on their political beliefs. Nbauman 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, they're not. They're arguing for its deletion because they don't believe the incident has demonstrated any long-lasting notability, as almost all of them have stated. They are having to deal with people who dislike that stance defaming them by ignoring their stated rationales claiming that their votes are politically motivated, or by making dark (and rather ridiculous) comments about how "putting the article up for deletion so quickly is itself a suspicious act." Binabik80 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little background. I happen to think that deputizing the campus rent-a-cops is a canonically bad idea. I protested against it when the administration did this at the University of Michigan back in the early '90s when I was a student there. That is hardly the issue. This video is simply this week's version of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not like if we don't have an article on it, it's going to fall off the face of the earth. If it becomes an important and oft-cited incident, we report that. But if it doesn't, we shouldn't. shoy 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just got through reading the article on the UCLA taser incident last year, that was is still of interest, and this one will be to as a reference to similar topics in the future. --Michael Lynn 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very notable event that inolves many moving parts: A former candidate for U.S. President, a university format, police brutality, free speech, the use of recording devices and mainstream websites such as YouTube in quickly spreading news, and so forth. I agree that this is a pinnacle event for Generation Y. Sure it's not the same thing as Kent State, but it is a controversial issue that will be discussed for years to come. I'm sure now whenever people talk about Taser guns, this will be brought up. Whenever people talk about university police, this will be brought up. Whenever people talk about political speeches at colleges, this will be brought up. It has changed a lot of things and the way people look at them. Abog 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A pinnacle event for Generation Y"? How could you possibly know this given that it happened two days ago? Because you speculate that people may talk about this in the future does not mean that this is an important event. When it becomes one, then it is the time for an article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already has become an important event. Just like any other event becomes significant immediately after it happens. I've never heard of something being not important and then all of a sudden becoming important 5 years down the road. Abog 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone even remember the UCLA tasing anymore? 128.227.126.157 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of important events happen without notice because their full implications are not known until later. This is a matter for historians and reliable sources to decide, not you, but you've already decided it's "a pinnacle event" based upon lord knows what. It's not important, it's just a passing news item. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki (I'm not volunteering). Passing news item. Many users who have said "Keep" are proposing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for advocacy, which it is not. If the article is nominated a month or a year from now, they can be expected to make the same arguments plus "notability isn't temporary!" even though we have no argument for notability except "It was on the news," and "It's notable to me." Gazpacho 23:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at the moment , 1275 news stories in Google Top News. The extreme interest now is a good indication of continuing interest--due not primarily to the police action alone, but the relationship with the presidential campaigns. DGG (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second arbitrary section break

Comment - a sensible suggestion. Dlabtot 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally do issues like this in AFD, and we don't close AFDs as "temporalily suspended". Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I'm kinda new here. Dlabtot 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree we don't "suspend" AFD discussion, but there is plenty of precedent for declaring no consensus, or calling to reconsider this again after a period of time. 23skidoo 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it done before. It was weird, but worked quite well. --Kizor 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When has it been done before? Anyways, I agree that a "postpone due to no consensus at this time" decision is a good idea. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles get a second or third AFD. If an event like this gets a Keep or No consensus now, and it does not turn out to be a "macaca moment" for Kerry, like happened to George Allen in the 2006 Senate campaign, it could later be deleted or given brief mention in an article about him. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always take a second look at the encyclopedic nature of a news story. The stated permancy of notability does not mean our judgements of it are not subject to further review. We are not required to have a crystal ball, and instantly determine the long term effects of every newsworthy occurrence. Edison 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's news not encyclopedic content. --345Kai 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with option for recreation at a later date Dlabtot had it right. This may be a major story later, but right now, it's not much. Give it a week to a month and see if people keep talking about it. If they do, it would probably make sense to add it back in. It is an issue that involves issues of free speech and police brutality, so it should be notable if it has any legs. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 02:10 (UTC)
  • Comment Why was a section break created? Revolutionaryluddite 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're a common sight in long discussions. From what I can tell, they're created arbitrarily to make the discussion more organized and easier to read and possibly prevent the occasional edit conflict. --Kizor 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. 220.120.157.2 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any indication why this is considered as an "important event" like many people in this debate is saying. Sure it has alot of news coverage, but that what wikinews was created for, not wikipedia. WP:NOT is a policy. Also it can't be transwikied to wikinews as they have different licences. Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You are correct that it's a policy, however as this AFD shows there are many cases where articles fall into a grey area. I've seen far less-notable news situations become subject of articles that have been kept. I opined to keep earlier on the basis that it is currently a major issue and for us to revisit it in a few months to determine if this stays the case. But I do feel comparing it to things like Kent State where people got killed is rather in poor state and rather offensive -- and it really hurts the argument for keeping this article. That's most likely a contributing factor for why WP:SNOWBALL hasn't been activated because (again as I said in my earlier comments) there's far too much WP:NPOV-violating and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDON'TLIKEIT discussion going on. 23skidoo 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Just because no one died doesn't mean that it's not significant. There have been a few riots (or even massacres) where no one died. They're still significant. No, the reason why the Kent State comparison is bad is because Kent State shocked a nation. This has yet to do that. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 04:48 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of whether you think the event was an incident of police brutality or not, every cable news station has been talking about it all day and something like 1/3 of the most viewed videos on youtube right now are about this incident. I think it's pretty safe to say that it's news whether you like it or not.Ottawastudent 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a critical event that highlights the tension in our culture between the elite and regular people, violence versus free speech, the controversy surrounding tasering, habeus corpus repealment, arrest without miranda rights or a charge (inciting a riot? are you kidding me?). And for the record, yeah maybe the guy is a jerk, but that doesn't mean he didn't hit on a major news category that millions of people have now been discussing for 2 days. 24.14.125.124 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here to get an objective overview of the situation, which I believe the article comes pretty close to doing. This guy was all over the news... I can think of many people who are lesser known that have articles here. Rawr 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is perfectly acceptable for its historical relevance, significance, and importance. The desire to have this article deleted is biased by political motives or to conceal the incident or something about it. If Wikipedia does delete it, then they'd might as well delete many other articles, such as the one about Rosa Parks and her bus seat incident. --76.114.242.31 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Look, this isn't Rosa Parks, it's not Kent State, it's not My Lai, it's not anything like that. I think the guy had his rights trampled, but these grandiose comparisons are really offensive and over the top. And they really don't help the discussion. In fact, the only thing that they really do is make the name droppers look foolish. superlusertc 2007 September 20, 07:43 (UTC)
  • Look this doesn't have to be Rosa Parks or Kent State or My Lai. Every article here does not have to be as important as the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. We are not paper. We can have an article on a minor river in India and a cartoon show. Let's not look for every article on Wikipedia to have some major cultural impact 10 years from now. We are out to be comprehensive, and that certainly includes an event like this. Johntex\talk 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please do not try to imply that I made a claim that isn't true, I don't appreciate that kind of behavior, especially where it doesn't belong. It needs to be understood how to interpret this statement correctly. This is the interpretation (I'll spell it out for you):
If either the Rosa Parks bus seat incident, Rosa Parks the individual, or the injustice she was standing up against (yes, you got me, it was a pun) are more significant than this student incident, then the point is "where do we draw the line on how to determine what articles to delete?" But if this incident is equal or greater in significance, well then that obviously would trivialize the argument. --76.114.242.31 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2. Just because someone comes along and points to something red and says "green" doesn't make it so. You can argue that my argument is foolish, but that won't make it so. I make light of these types of things because your goofy mind tricks don't work, except on the weak minded. I'm also skilled at putting adversaries on the defensive: I myself find it offensive to claim that this incident is somehow insignificant to another without justification or a plausible argument. --76.114.242.31 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slippery slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy. No one here has suggested deleting Rosa Parks' entry. Rosa Parks was an influential part of a US Civil Rights Movement. Mr. Meyer was not. Mr. Meyer thus far has been little more than a footnote in history. Rosa Parks is known to quite a few people in the US. Her name is listed in textbooks. Same with John Brown or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. If you ran a poll today, how many people would be able to recognize Andrew Meyer? It's offensive to place him alongside those whose lives and events have shaped the consciousness of a nation. I should add that if Mr. Meyer does become a great civil rights leader (or even a very minor one), I think that this article should be kept. But there's no indication that this thing will stay on anyone's radar for more than a week.superlusertc 2007 September 21, 04:21 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't know about those on the delete side of the aisle, but this is the most strikingly clear case of unlawful seizure combined with police brutality I've ever seen. Certainly there have been worse cases of police abuse, but this case took place practically in real-time and in living color, therefore it became a very popular news story. Someone mentioned Kent State. If this war drags on or escalates to the level of Vietnam, we might indeed face another Kent State. If so, we will look upon this event as a mere prelude, but until then I strongly suggest we meditate on this for a while, and read the Constitution.--Cjackb 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is going to be kept but come back in two months and AFD it again, and I guarantee it'll be deleted. 193.95.165.190 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was notable two days ago, it is notable right now, and it will surely be notable years into the future. This is a very significant event which has already garnered much attention and will surely be of historical value. Also a very fine article in my opinion, especially considering the short time period in which it was written. — xDanielx T/C 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An interesting story, but it's too early to claim that it's notable. My personal guess is that it will be a minor story, half remembered years hence. Of course, my personal guess is no better than anyone else's, but we don't have to guess. We can simply assume non-notable until there is clear, unequivocal evidence otherwise. Phiwum 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the most controversial story so far in the Presidential campaign season (and is already being cited in the news as Kerry's downfall), and the details are being reported piecemeal in various media outlets. For example, a Google search for (andrew meyer "constitution day" "swear me in as president") yields no hits. As a professional librarian, I urge the editors to keep this intriguing story as it continues to develop.141.165.80.186 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Er, Kerry is not running for president, his downfall was his accidental "end up in Iraq" line, and I don't think I've heard anyone even imply that this was Kerry's fault; he was trying to answer the guy's question and keep everyone calm. -VJ 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if true, this has no bearing on the article itself. Johntex\talk 14:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article itself is about an event that took place. The DISCUSSION page is where opinions are being declared. If the neutrality of the article is the fault, then say that, but don't claim the article itself to be a soapbox when it's about an event that has actually happened.
  • Weak Keep. A lot of the 'keep' votes here seem to be crystal-ballery; we shouldn't be making a judgement based on how significant this event will become in future, but based on how notable it is now. And therefore, I say keep it: it received plenty of coverage from news organisations, and has provoked some further discussion on issues of free speech and the use of police powers on campus. A month from now, this event may have proved insignificant and been entirely forgotten; if so, we can delete it then, but for the time being, it does no harm to keep it. Terraxos 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ok, ok, I'm not going to come here and say that we should keep this because this is a life changing event that will ring in history. I'm voting keep because it is a documented incident that has been relivant in the current media. It's been discussed enough on national news media to make it significant enough, I would say...
  • Keep as a significant event with significant coverage, per Cjackb. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete there's no way this article could be NPOV, and Wikipedia is not a news service. That's what Wikinews is for. To put into perspective, Northern Rock's financial crisis, which was the second-most important news story in every newspaper in Britain last week, does not have an article, only a subsection (I say "secondmost" given the amount of exposure given to the Madeline McCann disappearance). If this were to happen in not-America, I doubt it would have an article (systemic bias). Will (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but was the bank president tasered after shouting a dated colloquiallism? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't exactly see what you're getting at. By the way, Northern Rock's financial crisis has about 16,000 results on Google News, and with it being on the headlines of at least Sky News and BBC News for the few days (Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon) it was ongoing, even overtaking Madeline McCann, it just shows how notable that articleless incident is than the "And finally..." stories such as this incident or "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!", which do. Will (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an attempt at humor that did not translate well over the Internet. Here's another comparison: the article is now far more extensive than the coverage Wikipedia gives to the student protests at the 1968 Democratic convention, which does not even have its own article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sceptre's reasoning. This is a non-article. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "non-article" means what, exactly? It certainly looks like an article. It is written in prose. It has categories. It has reliable references. What makes it a "non-article"? Johntex\talk 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit of newspaper fluff, not an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between the two, in your opinion? Is it a question of recentness? If so, would you propose that we bar articles on movies, books, etc, until they have been out on the market for x years and we see if anyone still cares about them? Johntex\talk 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certianly not worthy of an encyclopedia article. WP:NOT#NEWS. Those saying that this is a freedom of speech related event are clearly expressing their point of view. The man resisted to his arrestation and that is why he was tased. Tomj 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some people are saying we shouldn't use crystal ballery to justify keeping the article...so why should it be used to justify deleting? it's important right now, it's still being reported on, it's still generating discussion, so why is wiki trying so speedily to delete it? it's a noteworthy case of police brutality/authority abuse. maybe not as shocking as rodney king or kent state, but it has been extensively covered and could have ramifications in the future on how tasers are applied and how police act at public functions. "don't tase me, bro" even has the chance to become a catchphrase in popular lexicon. i'm not saying it'll be relevant in 3 weeks, but just as i can't say it will be relevant, you can't say it WON'T be. but as for RIGHT NOW, people are still talking. that alone to me says KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.61.28 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I don't care about anybody else's definition of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the first place I came to learn about this event, I found it by searching "kerry taser," and learned what I wanted to know. The fact that the article is useful and relevant even to that degree is justification enough for its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.200.117 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:USEFUL Blahblahme 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is just an essay. It carries no weight. Posting a pretty blue link is not contributing to the discussion. Johntex\talk 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tomj. This man does not deserve the attention. At least, remove his name and photo. Greswik 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought this incident was pretty significant. I know the guy may have been inciting it deliberately, but the fact of the matter remains that at least four officers were on top of him and he posed no threat; the taser was not warranted. The notoriety the incident gained, aided by the full video and youtube, warrants an article. -VJ 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But precisly because it was incited, it will never be a good example on anything else than a PR-seeking guy knew how to make a policeperson tase him. This is exactly why a comparison with, say, Rodney King is so lame. Greswik 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Meyer, a modern day Herostratus -- Dlabtot 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- All Delete noms are based off speculation that this will not become a notable event. You guys say Wikipedia is not a source of current events yet the Main Page has the Current Events section or whatever it is properly called, which often links to current events. Also being said is that if this does become a notable event that it can be re-written. Why throw away work just because right now it is not as notable. I think will all the news coverage, online videos and such that it is already becoming notable. Lets keep this article around for longer. There is no telling what can happen at this point so leave the article be and the future will hold the fate of the article. FuzionZero 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To AfD Starter - This story wasn't shown on television because of the "don't taze me bro" line. This event is obviously much bigger than that. Either you are unaware of all the facts of this event or you have chosen a poor scapegoat to try and delete an important article regarding the first ammendment and police brutality. I can't believe your reason for deleting this was because it was just some event shown on television because of some line that was said. FuzionZero 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually not all the Delete comments are based on speculation that it will not be a notable event. Some of the comments (such as mine) are based purely on the fact that current events should not have articles on wikipedia... that is what our sister project wikinews is for (the current events section of the main page is taken from wikinews by the way, not from Wikipedia articles). I fully expect that this event will be encyclopedic... it just isn't encyclopedic YET. We need to wait and see what the longer term ramifications and impact of the event will be. At the moment we are still dealing with it 'in the present'. That's why I suggest delete and recreate later is a more accurate option. Blueboar 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may indeed have some long-term notability as one of the more effective pieces of political theater in quite a while. The current story, which doesn't recognize this, is an embarrassment. Many people have still not gotten the joke. This is an excellent place where WP:TIND should be applied. ObiterDicta ( pleadings •

errata • appeals ) 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:TIND can be applied on different levels. No deadline means we should not get ahead of the sources, but it also means we don't have to get the whole story on the first try either. Unlike a newspaper, we can continuously improve an article over time, with no deadline. I would agree that the article needs improvement (like most WP articles) but I disagree that deleting it now and recreating it later is the way to get that improvement. Dhaluza 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third arbitrary section break

Best....Comment....Here. Johntex\talk 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I presume that the function of Wikipedia is to inform and to educate its users guided by the idea that knowledge is an inherent good. This incident has appeared on national and international media. Regardless of that fact, the tasering of an individual when asking a question of an elected official is an extremely important event in a democracy. Regardless, of that fact, whether or not the police used unreasonable force on a citizen is an extremely important issue for all members of a society governed by the rule of law. It is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia to handicap public discourse by deleting an entry capable of elucidating the details of such an event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.197 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. He'll have his 15 minutes of fame and people who see this article 1 year from now will have a skewed perspective from the article, i.e. they might come away thinking that anyone still cares about it or he matters at all. General Epitaph 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This belongs on Wikinews...and it belongs on Wikipedia too. The two are not mutually exclusive as some have implied here. As for WP:NOT#NEWS, this is becoming one of the most widely misused policy shortcuts on AfD. The issue there is context, and the encyclopedic contexts of civil liberties vs. civil behavior have been laid out many ways above. Notability is a complete non-issue now, there never really was any reasonable doubt. For the people arguing wait and see on both sides, Notability is permanent--if the incident was a hoax, and the cops were really actors, and the taser was a prop, even that would make it more notable, not less. Notability is about whether something has been noticed by RS, not whether it meets some editor's personal opinion of whether it should be noticed. I think many of the comments, both keep and delete are not about what's best for WP readers, but are supporting the actions of the police or the taser victim. Amd I think many of the delete votes do not represent deletionism, as much as denialism. It happened; people know about it; so we can talk about it. Dhaluza 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Don't delete me Bro! per Mfko. This is not even a close call. Two published sources. Fin. Thesmothete 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This incident is in fact historically important because of the questions the guy asked, because of Kerry's reaction to everything (tells us something about Kerry) and because of student reactions. Then there's also the police. Sure police brutality happens a lot but seriously. Also the "attention" at the top of this page should be deleted. Why does it matter if someone created an account to voice their opinion over this? If it's just a particular incident that gets someone involved with wikipedia entries then... what's wrong with that? How does that make their opinion less valid? It all seems like vote-rigging to me.

Side Note -- Please close

  • Comment - This looks like a pretty clear keep. Can we close it and get it out of the article? — Omegatron 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This section is not "part of the article" as such. Also, I don't see a clear consensus on keep- more like a simple majority for keep. Please see the discussion above (in the 'Second arbitrary section break' part) about a proposal to postpone the deletion discussion. Revolutionaryluddite 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would support an early closure to keep. The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. As Omegatron says, lets close this and get the tag off the article. Johntex\talk 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. That's your opinion; please don't disimiss other users beliefs out of hand. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. 'No consensus' does not mean the same thing as 'keep'; please review the Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Revolutionaryluddite 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by both my statements. Every post here (with the exception of a few comments) contains someones opinions. My opinion is The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. You are welcome to form your own opinion.
I did not say "'No consensus' means the same thing as 'keep'". Please review what I wrote, it was, "At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep." (emphasis added) A keep results in the article being kept. So does a no consensus. Therefore, they are effectively the same.
Therefore, some bold admin should invoke WP:SNOW and close this in favor of keeping the article. Johntex\talk 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It frustrating to see user after user say 'Keep: I like it', but the majority is clearly on one side and there's no point in continuing the AfD. Revolutionaryluddite 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a majority-take-all vote. --ElKevbo 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do we usually close after just one day? Badagnani 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the nomination is disruptive or meets WP:SNOW, sure. Is it just me, or is every article about a current event nominated? For good reason, or just to put a big tag on the page that they know all kinds of newcomers to Wikipedia are visiting? This obviously goes above and beyond trivial news, and the (de facto) voters are in agreement. — Omegatron 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a few of the NOTNEWS AfDs are basically people voting for whether they agree with the thing. You can see that here. Many people seem to be forgetting that AfDs are Template:notaforum, and they're suggesting that because they personally don't like what the guy did, he shouldn't get the benefit of a Wikipedia article. There are valid reasons for wanting to see articles like this deleted; I'm not sure if it's appropriate to paint all the delete voters with the same "attention whore" brush that they have been using.
I still say that we don't have enough perspective to write a proper article about it, and we don't know if it will have any staying power (I'd like to see it have some staying power, and I think it's more likely than me getting a pony). But I don't have any strong opinions on this. If it's kept, I'll be just as happy as if it gets deleted. superlusertc 2007 September 21, 03:41 (UTC)
  • Just Keep it ... there comes a point when if enough people are willing to argue about an event it becomes encyclopedic for that reason whether or not it was originally worth having. That point has been reached, and the point has been made quite well that it is a notable event anyway. Bugsy 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth arbitrary section break

  • Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS was designed for news stories like this. When I first heard this story I was shocked and I thought this was a major breach of civil rights. Then I watched it on Youtube and realized this was just an obnoxious, whining student who clearly intended to get some kind of big reaction (I think "attention-whore" is the official term). Interestingly, many of the delete !votes are from editors who regularly take part in afd discussions, so they may be editors who are more familiar with deletion policy and Wikipedia policy in general than many of the keep !voters, most of whom appear to be saying "keep" based on variations of WP:ILIKEIT and "it's big news!". It is insignificant news, a student does something stupid and they show the tape on TV for a few hours. So what? This is an encyclopedia, look it up on Google news if you want to read about this. Crazysuit 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Attention whores can be encyclopedic, as well. What about Rollen Stewart? His article survived an AfD.superlusertc 2007 September 21, 02:47 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#NEWS is not designed to exclude significant news events--if it was, then the "design" does not represent Consensus, as demonstrated by the comments in this AfD. WP:NOR cautions us to avoid drawing un-sourced conclusions, and your delete argument is largely based on one. If RS say he was an "attention-whore" then it would be relevant to the article, and could be added with cites. But it is not a reason to delete, especially if it is just an editor's opinion, not an accepted fact. Dhaluza 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article refers to a relatively high profile news event. Article may need to be disaggregated due to noteworthiness of two (2) aspects contained in the article; "Andrew Meyer" and the catchphrase "Don't Tase Me, Bro!". (DTMB may become as popular in 2007 as "Where's the beef?" was in 1984. I myself am currently in the market for a DTMB t-shirt, but I digress.)72.82.198.34 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a notable event receiving a heap of news coverage. Yes, Timotab, notable events tend to get most of their news coverage in the days immediately after the event, but that is in no way a suitable argument for deletion. Besides, you are making an unmerited prediction that this will all "blow over," whatever that means. CelestialDog 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I specifically disagree with this line of argument. One of Wikipedia's advantages over other encyclopedae is its virtually unlimited size. So, unlike other encyclopedae, it does not need to limit its usefulness to that of the general reader. I certainly hope that we keep the CRGVH article indefinitely, so that someone who, for example, is researching, say, Iran's evolving approach to the Holocaust, or comparing attitudes across Muslim countries, or the breath of international conferences. The thing about knowledge is that you don't always know in advance what you're going to use. What is the harm in keeping the article? The .01 cents of disk space? In this case, there is already a meme being promulgated "Don't taze me, bro" It seems quite likely that, years from now, someone, somewhere will utter that phrase and someone else will want to look it up to find out what it means. Why would we intentionally delete the answer? Thesmothete 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting somewhat offtopic, so any follow-up discussions can be done on my talk page, or by e-mail. Regarding your position, I didn't mean to not include these topics, but to keep them as part of other articles, rather than independent articles. The meme also can be mentioned in several articles with phrases that arose on political situations. In all these cases, proper redirect links will guide the interested user to the article that includes the relevant incident. Independent articles should have notability above a certain threshold which, in my opinion, these events don't meet. -- Gabi S. 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NOT#NEWS doesn't say no current events, it just reminds us that we don't do all current events. This article may be notable now, and yeah, if five months or five years down the line it isn't, we'll delete it then - although I'd remind everyone that notability doesn't expire as popularity or memory fades. The potential for future non-notability, however, is not the same thing as being non-notable now. So keep. --Cheeser1 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just another pointless occurrence, no more notable than those car chases they televise on cops, or a crack head who tried to run from the coppers and got beaten down for it. There's no article on Billy-Bob Crackpipe so why does this tosser who merely was tazed for resisting arrest deserve his own? Remember kids, your rights are yours to exercise until they impinge upon someone else's rights, anyone who disagrees is wrong. In either case, the article is written like dogshit. Comradeash 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Florida_Taser_incident&oldid=159439680"