This article was nominated for
deletion on 28 March 2023. The result of
the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
The amount of media coverage over the years, for various different events, seems to make him pass
WP:GNG clearly, in my opinion (and as editor who started the article).
CT55555(
talk)
01:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. The extensive media attention spanning several years across multiple events appears to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:GNG for his notability. Additionally, his appearance on a nationally televised talk show further attests to his significance as deemed by the press.
JagerVick (
talk)
22:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I would have to agree with
WP:GNG. It wasn't just one incident for which he received a lot of press. It also wound him up on a national talk show so the press thought he was obviously worthy of notice. My only concern is the TikTok crowd editing the page with no sense of our guidelines but I think enough people are watching the page. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The exchanges between @
CNMall41 and @
Noloader need to cool down a few degrees.
I'm not going to take sides on the content issue - adding information that's verifiable and not controversial should be OK even if it comes from quality primary sources, and we also need to respect the fact this is a BLP article and the highest standards of sourcing need to apply.
Since @
CNMall41 has restored the status quo ante it seems the next step has to be discussion on this talk page to try to reach consensus. I think that's consistent with
WP:ONUS. Sniping at other editors in the edit summaries is not going to end in consensus. Nor will posting warnings on the other person's talk page, even if those warnings are well-intentioned and justifiable. What will help is explaining here, for each disputed fact, why you think its inclusion does or doesn't meet policy.
Oblivy (
talk)
06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping. You are correct however, I think you need to direct this towards the other editor. Unfortunately, we are beyond discussion as Wikipedia is not a
WP:PACT. This is a BLP violation of
WP:BLPPRIMARY and user is also actively engaged in another edit war. And still engaging despite two warnings (myself and another editor). Given the personal attacks in the edit summaries I am preparing a report for
WP:ANEW now.--
CNMall41 (
talk)
06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
For
WP:ANEW you are expected to show an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. I've tried to encourage that. I was disappointed to see the latest revert, but I suggest you wait a beat and see what @
Noloader's next step is.
Oblivy (
talk)
07:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for having a cool head and for the practical advice. After taking a closer look, I still filed the report. It is more than a content dispute. It is a BLP vioalation, sepcificaly
WP:BLPPRIMARY as user is using a public document (DOC record) where BLPPRIMARY says "do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Subject is also engaged in an edit war on
Null pointer where they have not engaged in a talk page discussion (and in fact reverted twice after another user posted a discussion on the talk page). They were told several times to utilize the talk page here and would be the one required to start a discussion per
WP:ONUS. I could be wrong, but while it is encouraged to use the talk page per ANEW, I do not see why we would allow edit warring to continue with a BLP violation given the facts stated. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
07:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
For example, a list of his convictions? I find the article a little confusing because it seems to go back and forth between arrests and convictions. I think that focussing on convictions would be the most responsible way to handle the BLP.
Dogweather (
talk)
19:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think it's appropriate to mention his arrests (where reliable sources do also),
WP:BLPCRIME guides us is to make sure we don't imply guilt where none has been found. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured But I would support any edits that brings greater clarity.