The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A majority of participants are of the view that this event is sufficiently significant to warrant an article.  Sandstein  11:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Texas pool party incident[edit]

2015 Texas pool party incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:WI1E, WP:BLP1E for the officer, and WP:NOTNEWS. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - seems like a way of restoring the quickly deleted article on the officer who resigned. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-referenced article on topic with significant continued coverage by multiple independent sources. Vipul (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a news event not a notable event. The DPD shooting of James Harper in 2012 received far more media attention and protester involvement at the time. So far the Dallas media has moved on to other things in Dallas than the pool party. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An ongoing event. Officer Casebolt resigned, and it seems as if the department is reacting relatively well. There is no "thing" to describe yet, because it isn't over. If it is over, then it is a sad, disturbing, and too common incident of overuse of police force that blends into the many others. Fails notability, plus Wikipedia is not the evening news. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the big one for me here is WP:EFFECT. Thus far, there is no indication that this event will meet a 10 year test, or even a two month test for that matter. The WP:BLP issues related to the case are also significant. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per everyone else. Everything is already starting to cool down and there's no indication this event will come back as a common reference. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for not meeting this criterion from WP:NEVENT: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least for a little longer. As much as these may be not uncommon (very much depending on definition), episodes like these seem to trigger new ones (as they have done in the past) and could potentially spark an even more serious event in the near future. If that were to occur, it is useful to be able to refer back to content like this. It's too early to call off as a single isolated event (particularly with the media coverage and spread it received) and to say it has no effect or notability. That could be done in a few months. It's a decent and objective page as it stands in the meantime. From WP Notability: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." and also states "Don't rush to delete articles". Global aviator (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a part of the ongoing saga of how White people react when Black people use their pool.[1] It should be kept as a data point in American race relations. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Kendrick7^talk 03:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, merge, redirect or move - This incident is already discussed briefly at McKinney, Texas. The article has multiple reliable references, and for that reason, should be kept, merged/redirected to McKinney, Texas, or moved to McKinney Police Department (Texas). --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid rationale for deletion. "Single event" arguments (ONEEVENT, WI1E, BLP1E) only apply to articles that are biographies of a person, or perhaps articles about things that were involved in the event. By its nature "notable only for one event, so redirect to the article on the event" cannot apply to an article on the event itself. "No lasting effect" arguments (NOTNEWS, EFFECT, NEVENT) cannot, by their nature, automatically apply to articles on very recent events. In any event, the guidelines say "lasting effect" is a grounds for notability, not a mandatory requirement for notability, and that very recent events can be notable. In any event, I think this event is likely to receive lasting coverage. In any event, since this could be redirected/merged per Jax0677, it isn't eligible for deletion (WP:ATD). James500 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable in the long saga of racism and police violence in the United States. Received significant international coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with James500 that -1E guidelines does not apply to events. Plus, the latest reliable source I see from GNews search is merely 20 hours back (by The Guardian), suggesting the influx of RS attention is yet to be stale, and we cannot conclude definitively that this event has no lasting effect to be unfit for WP as of now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I read through the article and it seems that it was a news event that blew up and then died down.It appeared on my news for a day or two and then disappeared. Is it truly notable? Will people remember it one or two or six months from now? A year from now? Or are people wanting to include it to forward their own agenda be it the hatred for police since a police officer was involved or racism and their wanting to include it as a "see I told you the police hate black people" of which seems to be the norm is many a news story these days. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:EFFECT. The only lasting effect of this incident is that a police officer and high school principal are no longer employed. The news cycle has already died down and is mostly focusing on decreasingly interesting reactions to this event. One of the keep votes above makes the fine point that this should be "kept as a data point in American race relations." I couldn't agree more. It's a data point in a much larger story. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're agreeing with me, but not really? Sorry, but this is really a thing in American culture, see: Wiltse, Jeff (June 10, 2015). "America's swimming pools have a long, sad, racist history: They've long been contested spaces where we express prejudices that otherwise remain unspoken". Washington Post. This is indeed part of a WP:LASTING trend. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree it's part of a WP:LASTING trend. Being "part of a lasting trend" does not equate to "having a lasting effect." If this incident were the driving force behind that particular trend forever changing, that would be one thing, but being merely "part of" a lasting trend is, in my opinion, actually an argument against notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kendrick7, I see what you are saying but I've been watching and documenting the TV news here in Dallas and they haven't even mentioned the pool event in a few days. But I don't think you are concern with that but trying to promote it as an example of racism to further your own racism agenda. The racism claims of the pool party are in the air as the witnesses to it are friends of Tatiana Rhodes as well as the ones helping her with the event. It was not a sanctioned event by the HOA (reserving the pool) but even then the parties are limited to 20 people max. And that was something Tatiana did not care about due to her promoting the event all over social media, hiring a DJ and was using the event to sell tickets for another "Make it Clap" event. There is way more to the story than initially reported. Will the local news do a follow up to it, Channel 11 has tried but cannot get Tatiana side to it regarding the event or her "Make it Clap" business ventures. Seems she has gone into hiding. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes, it's news to me that I have a "racism agenda". You seem to admit the subject is notable given that it has been widely discussed. So let's go on having that discussion, rather than one side trying to silence the other vie the AFD process, OK? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Notable enough to make the news? Yes. Notable enough to rate an entry? Not really. What is the real lasting effect. Has it remained in the news on a constant basis? Not that I have seen and as I said I have been monitoring and logging the 4 news stations here in the DFW metroplex. Not everything that makes the news deserves a wikipedia entry. If you disagree then does that mean everything on the front page of the Plano Star Courier gets an entry? How about that bear cub found roaming that Corinth neighborhood. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The move to delete this article is political in nature. An editor first performed multiple edits, each with the effect of softening or minimizing what occurred. Then the same editor added a not-notable template. After some back-and-forth, the not-notable template was removed. Then the same editor again performed multiple edits (on the article he or she felt was not notable), each again moving the article in the direction of "nothing happened here." Why would someone persist in making substantive edits to an article he or she believed was not worth inclusion? I don't see how it makes sense to take both positions at the same time. "This article needs to be improved" -- "This article should not be in Wikipedia." The entire sequence of actions demonstrates a violation of the spirit (if not perhaps the letter) of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratman (talk • contribs)

WP:AGF, but whatever, right? Anyways, feel free to point out (on my talk page, not here were it is a distraction) what policy or guideline prevents someone from !voting to delete an article but still trying to keep it NPOV compliant. It is hardly surprising that the article started out a little sensationalistic, since several new editors/IPs were drawn to the subject after seeing the viral video. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...aand your argument in favor of keeping it is what, again? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with an eye towards an eventual merge: WP:NOTNEWS is the only one of the quoted policies that is potentially applicable. If this were an isolated incident, that potential would probably apply. As it stands, we've seen a remarkable number of related incidents in the last year and we will probably wind up having an article about that. When that article is created, this should be merged into it, but until then, there's no substantial reason to delete this one.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable due to continued national media coverage. Andrew Parodi (talk)
• Comment - @Wikimandia:, @Heyyouoverthere:, @Hithladaeus:, @VQuakr:, @Libertarian12111971:, @Qwertyus:, @ThurstonHowell3rd:, @Ginsengbomb:; Assuming that this article should not be kept, why should it not be redirected or merged? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged or redirected to where? The article about the town? Article about pool safety? It's basically a news story; we don't redirect or merge those. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always assume when an article is deleted, it gets turned into a redirect link or merged at best. That's why I just say delete instead of anything else. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion and merger are not compatible outcomes for copyright reasons. We don't delete acceptable redirects (those that don't satisfy the deletion criteria in WP:R) unless the entire page history satisfies the criteria for revision deletion. See further WP:IGNORINGATD. James500 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Wikimandia, I don't see an appropriate redirect target. An article about racism or police violence in the US would seem to be the most appropriate, but only if the incident is connected to a trend in reliable sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pool safety sounds pretty good. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to already be due coverage at McKinney, Texas#Police department so a merge is unnecessary. The title is not a recognizable one, so a redirect is similarly unhelpful. I have no objection to a redirect if others feel one would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the "keep" rationale is that this is part of the backlash against public accommodations fairness, it would logically go under something related to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, that's not generally the actual rationale. It would therefore be better at integration, since the integration of public accommodations continues get get people (well, bigots) riled up. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:COATRACK prevents 1964 Civil Rights Act being a credible target. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Actually, smaller cities in Texas have articles about their law enforcement departments, so the police department for this city could have their own article. Since McKinney, Texas talks about this, and redirects are cheap, we could also redirect to the section about the police department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: the article on this particular police department was redirected after an AfD. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions at AfD in favour of, or against, mergers and redirections are not binding, because this is not "articles for merger" or "articles for redirection" (the correct forums are mainspace talk pages). The only binding outcomes are "delete" (which can be overturned at DRV, or, effectively, by recreation in an improved form) and "don't delete" (which can be overturned by another AfD). We can reconsider that merger/redirection here and now, if we are so inclined. James500 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the AfD decision, there could be a case made that the department has become more notable due to the coverage from this incident. I was more pointing out the existence of the previous discussion than implying that the decision was indelibly made. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Assuming that McKinney Police Department (Texas) shall remain deleted, we can still redirect to McKinney, Texas. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least for six months. The predictions that this event will disappear in importance are completely faith-based. Why not, you know, actually find out instead of relying on your crystal balls? --Calton | Talk 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there's a credible target to merge - most of the other issues with law enforcement in the US relate to killings (eg List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2015). Unless someone wants to create a page like "list of allegedly racist issues causing United States law enforcement officers to resign" then there seems to be no credible target. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but no objection to a merge/redirect to McKinney, Texas - as others have mentioned above. Neutrality^talk 03:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incidents where "white police officer kills unarmed black youth" are of course newsworthy and notable. But "white police officer forces unarmed black girl to lie on grass" suggests a slow news day. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Vipul, Kww, and Calton. Notable event that has gained wide international attention and generated much commentary. Opposers fail to convince me that article deletion improves the encyclopedia. Jusdafax 08:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a part of the ongoing saga of how Black people react to police. It should be deleted as non news in American race relations. --Malerooster (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nationwide coverage continues, rather than it fading out after a day as some editors' crystal balls told them it would do. See today's Google news coverage from numerous US states of the prosecutor's request that the Texas Rangers investigate the incident. The Dallas Morning News said today "Video of Casebolt’s role in breaking up the party in the Craig Ranch neighborhood flung McKinney into a national debate about race and police relations" This shows that the event had the required "impact." . Satisfies WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it nationwide coverage of the same released news story of the Rangers or nationwide coverage based on reporters around the nation converging on the area to report on it? I saw the tease of the Rangers doing the investigation but it was a 30 second blurb on one station and a bit longer on another station here in the DFW area. The longer one indicated it will look into the party itself and how it got out of control in addition to the officer's involvement. As for the debate on race and police relations. There has't been any real debate on it. Did they, the news stations, talk about race/police relations when it first made the news? Yes. Since then? Not at all. Edison: How is being treated on your local news? Can you document what they are doing on the article's talk page. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Comment Why do you find it necessary to tell us, in detail, what you see on your TV set?? I do not feel it is necessary to debate you or to defend what I said. When the world and national press see this as a telling instance of the relationship between police and Blacks in the US, then delete arguments which are basically "Move along, nothing to see here" are not compelling. Edison (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is sometime difficult to guess what will become a widely publicized and permanently notable event, but I do not think this is actually a borderline case, despite the relative lack of harm as compared to some others. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps merge it into a new category of 2015 pool fights? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment Be careful what you wish for... BusterD (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wish include a modeling career? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That's supposed to be a retort? Resentment issues here... BusterD (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. You both might be letting your emotions cloud the issue. Especially since you both linked to the exact same Fairfield pool article albeit by different news agencies with the first by a local TV station. Perhaps this article needs to be merged into one about police interactions with the public. But since the original people involved in the incident have made it a career jumping off point, I'd like to see where it ends up at. Pool party, Dime Piece, Modelng? What next? ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet again your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient ongoing coverage that it is likely not going away. Artw (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - At least for a while. The recent arrest of the Charleston murderer resulted in another spate of coverage, comparing the treatment of the arrest of the white suspect in that case with the treatment of the black teen in this case. Others above have noted other forms of continuing media attention. It may become less important later, or because of the video coverage it may remain a "standard" example of the difference in police reactions to white vs. black youth. But until we know for sure, the article should remain. Darrah (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What channel was that on? I wanna see. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks well-sourced and being actively discussed in the African American community. DimensionQualm (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's certainly a lot of coverage of the incident and there's a pretty good indication coverage will be lasting. No prejudice against renomination if somehow that doesn't happen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The incident got international coverage and is still getting some coverage now, so I think it rises above the WP:NOTNEWS level. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Continues to receive national news coverage in the United States, indicating the topic being above and beyond the parameters set forth in WP:NOTNEWS, and likely to have enduring notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.