Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 3 October 2011

Anthony Bologna

Anthony Bologna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article exists to name and shame a BLP2E police officer, against whom there is much public anger currently. Subject is not independently notable. No need to merge, relevant content is already in Occupy Wall Street article LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - article has clearly been created to attack a living person. Although some additional fluff has been added to create the appearance of a notable biography - its all about the pepper spray one event. The person is a basic one event notable at the moment only and at the most is a section of a small para on the main event. Lots of COI editing in this area at present as is to be expected. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Question: WP:BLP2E? Interesting nomination... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Come on, it's just a typo.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, actually on purpose (in response to criticism that Bologna was a BLP1E, it was pointed out that there were accusations of excessive force another time before. OK, fine, BLP2E. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind of cute, but usually better to avoid humor in nominations - I've discovered that the AfD process is often a contentious one. But as long as we're having fun (are we having fun?), I would call it a BLP-one-and-a-half-E, at most.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If WP wasn't fun, would any of us be here? But seriously, WP can be incredibly un-fun, especially when the article you worked so hard on gets deleted, so agreed, no more humor. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think BLP1E is accurate. That's what I first described it as. The previous incident isn't something he was notable for (it didn't receive ANY media attention until this incident. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you explain this: media attention before this incident? Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Todd, I just finished reading that article myself looking for ANYTHING of value I could add to the Anthony Bologna article (playing Devil's Advocate) and was frustrated. It's a neighborhood coverage human interest story that didn't even give the name of his spouse (which, at least, I could have added to the infobox). His service in the Coast Guard Reserve was useless, since I have no idea if its current. It wasn't even "news", never mind encyclopedic. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to review the basics of WP:GNG, then the subtleties of WP:BIO. It's not about how useful the coverage is to editors on Misplaced Pages. Was there a circulation criteria for sources in WP:BLP2E? I might have missed that. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"How useful the coverage is to editors on Misplaced Pages" is EVERYTHING. Nothing to include in the article beyond his pepper spraying = no article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop fabricating policy. There isn't a single instance of policy relating to WP:GNG, WP:BIO (or even things you make up like WP:BLP2E) that refers to usefulness. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is nothing of value from source material to add as content to the article beyond his pepper-spraying I just can't make stuff up. And without anything beyond his pepper-spraying as content there shouldn't be an article, it can be contained in the main OWS article. At least I made a GF effort to find stuff to add. It's not possible, try for yourself. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referencing the previous incident of his alleged civil rights abuses. That article is a fluff story. Every local newspaper does them, but it doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should have an article about every single mom the local newspaper covers when they're bored. It's pretty much pure coincidence that Bologna has other articles about him in addition to the recent ones, but that doesn't make him notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Article fails WP:BLP1E. To the extent Bologna's pepper spraying, after adjudication, constituted quasi-criminal conduct, the article also fails WP:CRIME. His rank of deputy inspector does not make him inherently notable. It's unclear how many deputy inspectors there are in the NYPD (I tried to figure that out), but there are certainly many. Finally, the civil rights lawsuit is not notable. Many, many federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against the police all the time, and this one hasn't yet even been decided in the courts, so it's simply an allegation. Also, it's not clear what other civil rights besides false arrest are involved - the cited article isn't very clear. Finally, although it happened at the time of the convention, it wasn't really related to the convention protests ("His arrest was not directly related to the protest against the Republican convention, but was at a time of heightened tension in New York.").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep — The article is about an individual who is notable in his role in several distinct events. Bologna's involvement has been every time a well-documented historic event. If User:LoveUxoxo has reasons to believe that the article has contentious material about Bologna that is unsourced or poorly sourced, that specific content should be removed. Otherwise, the article meets the WP:BLP guidelines. Merging with Occupy Wall Street is not appropriate, because Bologna is not "notable only for one event" as per WP:BLP1E. Other allegations by User:LoveUxoxo that the editors of the article intended "to shame a police officer" are not supported by any evidence that would amount to a violation of WP:COI. If, however, User:LoveUxoxo claims that a particular editor is "advancing outside interests", a proper resolution is to deal directly with a suspected conflicted editor as per WP:COI. In addition, the article meets the Notability test as per WP:SIGCOV: Bologna has received "significant coverage" in verifiable multiple sources that are independent. The cited sources address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street or any other political movement. --Fayerman (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- I don't think any editor's behavior on this issue is wrong, and I believe that everyone has been acting in good faith. I came to the article originally by googling "Anthony Bologna", and saw the page and reacting (seriously) with horror. It's blatantly obvious for what it is, regardless of the intentions of the editors involved. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply — In that case, your assertion stated in the AfD nomination, that the "article exists to name and shame", is groundless opinion. Please refrain from arguments that do not explain how the article violates a particular policy. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply -- Regardless of the noble motivations of the editors involved (NOT sarcasm), the article is what it is. A name and shame BLP1E content fork that should be covered in the main article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete History of the article and such edits as show this article as a POV-magnet, plain and simple. Just about every senior police official manages to get listed for getting promoted, but that is not, IMO, sufficient to make every senior police official notable for a Misplaced Pages article. In fact - this article did not exist until 28 Sept 2011 -- and shows the rationale for the article ab initio. Allegations that he is "internationally famous" do not appear substantiated. In fact, it is clear that absent the pepper spray allegations, he would never have a WP article belies that claim instantly. Misplaced Pages is ill-suited for deliberate use of a BLP to promote a POV, and that appears to be the only rationale for this article. All salient material looks like it will be merged (per the AfD on the article to which the BLP was renamed) and that should be quie sufficient reason to delete this as now a "POV fork." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete There is plenty of news coverage, but only because of his temporary newsworthiness, not encyclopedic notability. This article exists to denigrate the subject and as a coatrack for certain political activity. Peacock (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The purpose of this article is not to "name and shame" someone, but to fulfill our curiosity, same as any. This pepper spraying incident is so peculiar because, whatever the critics say, he had no reluctance to do it right out in front of the cameras, and there's no strong reason to think the NYPD is going to call his behavior inappropriate. That gets us interested in what kind of job he holds, who he answers to, what the policies are, what his history was with the other protests, what grudges people hold against him that might taint their version of events, etc. etc., leading, as a river leads to the sea, to the general desire for a full and fair biographical article about the person. And I think I've done a fair amount to balance it out. There's lots more information out there about him. For the record I think other Deputy Inspectors in the NYPD should be covered here, for example Roy T. Richter mentioned in this article as head of a police union. I think if you Google him you find lots of fairly good sources worthy of making a biography also. I would ask whether people here want a ban on every Deputy Inspector, or only those receiving negative publicity which is all over the headline news? My position is simple: cover the WP:WELLKNOWN facts. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense - Please don't post your personal interpretation of his feelings/reasons he did something - or your personal opinion about the NYPD either - it would be better id you redact it. I know you don't support WP:BLP but please don't violate it here. We are not here to answer peoples in the moment interest - we write articles about correctly notable people - not because they are in the press at the moment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't posted any "personal interpretation of his feelings", except to say he knew he was being filmed, which has been remarked elsewhere anyway. In the second videotape that came out he pepper sprayed right across a camera's field of view. We have a right to ask these questions about historical events and try to understand how people are thinking. Your interpretation of "BLP" is an inquiry so circumscribed that most of the time you can't cover recent events. Misplaced Pages deserves better. Wnt (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"We have a right to ask these questions about historical events and try to understand how people are thinking" Very true, however this is not the appropriate place for such research and analysis of current events. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What policy says Misplaced Pages has to be out of date? That we have to wait to write about what happened until most of the sources have become difficult to find? That we can't be useful now, when the history is happening, rather than only after the fact? Wnt (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources will be difficult to find? This just happened. You just want to report it like a newspaper would. See WP:NOTNEWS. See also WP:NOT ("In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."). Per your words, you apparently want Misplaced Pages to be useful in a political way:

And in compiling the information we give people, in this case the people of New York, the power to understand how their police department operates, what difference individual people in it make, whether they like it or hate it. Which is what Misplaced Pages is for - giving people the knowledge they need to understand and have a say in the world they live in.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I do. I also support having an article United States presidential election, 2012, and thorough articles for each of the candidates. There's nothing wrong with us informing people about politics in accordance with our policies. Wnt (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

6 attractive young women screaming on camera after being maced in the face isn't really "history" on par with Norman Morrison. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nor is it, say, Port_Militarization_Resistance#Port_of_Olympia_-_November_2007 or other protests from a few years ago in which police were spraying or dripping pepper spray directly into protesters' eyes. Unlike the impression given by some of the activists, I'm all too aware that Bologna's reaction was actually quite restrained compared to some of the things done not long ago. I imagine if we had all the background to this case - say, what was accepted by the entire police force during the 1982 Crown Heights Riots which Bologna was present for - we might come to understand better why he did this now. I don't know if we'll ever get to that point but we certainly won't if we don't take the first step. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There is no BLP2E policy. 17 independent, reliable sources are already provided, and there are at least two times that available if you simply do a Google News search. The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything which isn't a puff piece about someone. When there are a large number of reliable sources which give the subject significant coverage, there is no policy-based reason to delete. For a relevant example of an individual notable for one major event which continually is deemed notable, see Anna Svidersky. Or the many, many articles we have about convicted serial killers. (And yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF. Examples help, and that's not the argument I'm making.) Steven Walling • talk 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What a load of promotion Walling - get real - this article has clearly been created just now - it was created to attack the subject. Before the protesters wanted to attack him he was not a bit notable. You then say, see all the serial killers articles - what for? they have nothing to do with this article at all -Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to this argument about motive. Article creation occurs in accordance with the law of mass action, at a rate which is directly proportional to the number of Misplaced Pages editors and the number of publications reaching them about the topic of the article. When something is top news and a quarter of the editors on Misplaced Pages see it mentioned before lunch, an article will be created. There's no POV in that. Now I don't deny that underlying emotional reaction increases the chance an editor will take interest, but it's a smaller effect and IMHO seems to vary between editors. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Svidersky article is even close to being comparable to the Bologna article. That aside, how do you apply WP:BLP1E? Is the number of sources dispositive? I'm curious. And on a more susbtantive note, why isn't inclusion of some of this material in the Occupy Wall Street article sufficient? Just to talk about Bologna's background and the 2007 civil rights suit? There's nothing notable here that can't be merged into the Occupy article. And the so-called BLP2E "policy" has already been addressed above, so it wasn't even worth mentioning - again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- WP:OTHERSTUFF is so stupid, I hate it. And I think Anna Svidersky is a good example of why an article on Bologna would be bad. All the content in that article deserves two concise paragraphs in the Missing White Woman Syndrome article, at most. How can anyone read that lede and not cringe is beyond me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's tons of material about the subject and not about Occupy Wall Street. Just read the New York Times articles and the other dozen-plus sources which are about Anthony Bologna and not about the continuing protests. The story became about him, and that kind of coverage from reliable sources justifies an article. That's how Misplaced Pages works, we bring together material from other reliable sources based on what they cover. You can't ignore the amount of coverage Bologna has been given, since it's our core measuring stick for what to include and what not to. It doesn't matter how many times you badger everyone who's in favor of keeping this -- the sources don't disappear. Steven Walling • talk 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The badgering comment is beneath you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the Svidersky article is more of a commentary on mass media, in particular the Internet, and mass hysteria/grief than it is on a murder. It's hard to delete an article where the media likens the worldwide reaction to Svidersky's murder to the worldwide reaction to the death of Diana.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You can argue around the examples I gave, but they're a tertiary issue. The policies I'm citing here are verifiability and the general notability guideline. Plain and simple. Steven Walling • talk 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The 2005 and 2010 references represent substantial coverage in independent reliable sources prior to the Occupy Wallstreet incident. The subject already satisfied WP:GNG before the event which brought him so much attention. Pburka (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Uh, no it does not. Truthsort (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps we're looking at different articles? I was referring to and . Yes, it's local media, but it's local media in a city of 12 million people. If you review the guidelines at WP:Notability you'll find that this coverage qualifies as significant, independent and reliable. I stand by my position that if an article about Anthony Bologna had been brought to AfD a month ago it would have been kept. Pburka (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Even the other "notable" incident involving him is only being brought up in the aftermath of the Wall Street Protest, so as far as I'm concerned, this is still a WP:BLP1E issue. There is no significant coverage before this incident that would suggest that he was notable before. Simply cherry picking a couple of local sources back in 2005 and 2010 (one of which is apparently just a text file) does not constitute "significant coverage". Truthsort (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I came to look him up and was glad to find the article. Had there not been prior (to the wall street macing indecent) coverage of him in WP:RSs or he had not been involved in such a notable indecent there would be case for deletion. As it is this article is a useful source of information and I see little disadvantage in it's retention.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Multiple articles spanning several years satisfy the baseline notability criterion. Croctotheface (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete clear violation of BLP, and I'm surprised this is controversial. The overall event at the demonstration is notable; his individual role is not. The other negative material is a charge, not a conviction. The minor positive material is not sufficient for notability, not representing significant coverage.I see this as a clear violation of DO NO HARM. (that phrase does strike me as a little ironic in this particular case, but I support NPOV regardless of my own opinions.) DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. The only truly notable news stories that have been about the officer have been about the OWS protests. Yes, those mention past incidents with the officer; howerver, the officer is only known for the OWS protests. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - We may wish he didn't have coverage before the event, but he did, and this isn't an IAR situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: This guy has been in the news for over more than half a decade: BLP1E does not apply. BLP2E (the basis of this nom) does not exist. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you ask or this AFD is closed as a speedy keep on a technicality as you are supporting I will re nominate. Also if you and multiple users vote in regard to a faulty nomination I will also renominate after closure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely not a speedy keep. It's a BLP, so we need to proceed with the utmost care, as with all BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I only see notability for one event here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why do you discount the sources from the mid 2000s? Did you see them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Those sources (Downtown Express, DNAinfo) do not describe a notable person, just a patrolman who rose through the ranks to middle-management. The incident regarding an alleged false arrest generated no media attention at the time, it was not an "event". Bologna is an example of the banality of a not-having-a-very-good-day law enforcement officer. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The very fact that those sources exist means that he is notable by Misplaced Pages's standards. WP:Notability, in the Misplaced Pages sense, isn't how we feel about an article. It's a clearly defined policy. Notability is presumed if there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. These articles are substantial (they're not passing references) and the sources are reliable and independent. Therefore he is presumed to be notable. Pburka (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The policy uses the subjective term "significant coverage", and I think being mentioned (prior to his pepper-spraying) twice in his lifetime, in 2 neighborhood newspapers (of which no one, unless you live in Manhattan, would have ever heard about before) falls far short of "significant". LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's not subjective; it's clearly defined: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. These articles are certainly not trivial mentions and the subject is the main topic of the source material. They clearly each satisfy the objective standards for significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are convincing me that according to the letter of that policy you are right. And I'm also convinced that phrasing that policy that way is the stupidest thing I've seen the Raiders punted on 4 and 3 earlier today. According to that policy, this article http://www.dnainfo.com/20110930/chelsea-hells-kitchen/hells-kitchen-gay-bar-might-close-during-school-hours gives inherent notability to some random bar. Common sense, better than any policy every formulated on WP, tells us that is not true. Fortunately no most policies on WP are are not binding, and and that badly-written one has an escape clause that the finding of notability is presumptive, not a guarantee. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is a government official who has gotten international press for his personal role in multiple notable events, and who serves in a fairly high rank in a (the?) major city of the US. We must by all means observe the rules with respect to biographies of living persons and neutral POV. But that doesn't mean we must suppress every unpleasant fact. TypoBoy (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates