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 delete. There is still a consensus that we should not have this article.  Sandstein  16:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (police officer) (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)

Looks to be a COATRACK/Attack article. Was previously deleted on Sep. 6th. Would seem to be eligible for speedy deletion, but a veteran user has suggested on the article talk page (incorrectly, I think) that the subject is no longer BLP1E notable. The guy's not notable, has only been Ferguson PD for 4 years, and IMHO the article is already starting to shape up exactly like the stated description of improper attack pages — i.e. it's going to be dominated by negative material about his rather loose relationship to this controversial police shooting, with a specific aim at insinuating some kind of wrongdoing or culpability on his part. Not what BLPs are for, as I understand it.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion discussion template kept mucking everything up, would only display as plain text -- if I used the template it just ended up creating a copy of the first discussion in which the article was deleted. No text of mine would display. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've set up the entire page so apologies if i've messed anything up or missed something out. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally closed this as article was tagged under G4 .... but someone disagreed with my AFD closure ... so have reopened. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are thousands of news sources available that discuss the subject in various levels of detail. Easily meets WP:BASIC. If the article has improper content, or is being used as a WP:COATRACK, then the appropriate course of action is to edit the article, not delete it outright.- MrX 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Please let editors try and build a good quality article about this Chief of Police. He is notable for being the chief during an incident that attracted national and international media attention; the DOJ and the FBI are conducting investigations on the police department that he heads. With proper care, this article can conform to BLP and provide information to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Note that not even Michael Brown has a standalone article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this article should be kept, but if this close as "delete" per the concerns expressed, how will readers find out when they search for his name in Wikipedia? At a minimum a redirect to Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) would be warranted, same as Michael Brown (disambig page with wl to the Shooting of Michael Brown, or Darren Wilson (police officer) which redirects to the shooting article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Jackson is paid to give press conferences, he isn't low-profile. Darmokand (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The most senior police officials in a state, even a small state like Rhode Island, would be considered notable as officeholders at the state or province level, as per WP:Politician. So would the most senior police officials in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Nunavut or the Falkland Islands, as the level immediately below the Federal level counts -- even if its population is small -- as per WP:Politician. Meanwhile, the chief of Police of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, wouldn't merit coverage, unless they measured up to the criteria of the WP:GNG.

  If Jackson measures up to the criteria of the WP:GNG he merits coverage. Period.

  Why don't we have individual articles on the hundreds of thousands of individual who are currently Chiefs of Police around the world? Those individuals haven't done anyything to stand out. They haven't appeared on Sean Hannitty's show. They haven't had commentators from across the political spectrum, make observations about their job performance, or their motives.

  Second, nominator called upon the authority of a (mis)interpretation of the COATRACK essay, claiming that the article currently an "attack article", or is shaping up to be an "attack article". If Jackson has said or done something that is extraordinary, it is absolutely not an "attack" to cite good references that say his actions are extraordinary. Or, the reverse, if Jackson didn't do the usual thing, and good references say so, using those references to cover however he behaved extraordinarily, would not make this an "attack article." And if the good references refute claims Jackson said or did something extraordinary, and the article uses those references to say that, that too would not be a an attack article.

  Has Jackson said or done something extraordinary? Maybe. Usually when there is strong reason to suspect a police officer has committed a serious breach of their local code of conduct, the officer is generally suspended, with pay, and the superior decline to comment, instead, when asked, they express confidence in the neutrality and judgment of the third party called in to perform a review of his conduct. If Jackson didn't suspend the shooter; if he failed to make sure the scene was secured; if he has taken sides, and tried to defend the shooter and his colleagues, then I strongly suggest this would all be highly notable behavior. On the other hand, if Jackson did none of those things, but less reputable sources say so, then, frankly, it would be irresponsible to not cover the refutation. Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Chief of Police is entrusted by the state to explain state policy to the citizens-- it's not a low profile job. If WP:GNG is met, it's a keep-- WP:BLP1E is only for low-profile people-- not people elected or appointed to exercise the power of the state. --Darmokand (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why are we having another discussion? This article has already been deleted after an AfD discussion which finished nine days ago. Nothing has changed. This man is still "notable" for one incident, in which he was not even directly involved - he simply responded to a situation and did his job (whether he did it well or badly is irrelevant to his notability). Everything else stems from that. He is head of a small police department in a small city. Unlike Geo Swan above, I do happen to believe that chiefs of larger departments are notable by virtue of their office (as do many others - since we apply common sense and not dogma - of course the police chiefs of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai and Moscow are notable!), but he is not. He is simply not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chiefs of NYC, Tokyo, etc, can rise to wikipedia notability when they satisfy the criteria of significant coverage laid out in the WP:GNG. If a chief of NYC, Tokyo, does his job so smoothly he or she doesn't trigger any controversy, and thus doesn't trigger "significant coverage" the GNG says he or she isn't notable.

    Jackson has triggered multiple times the significant coverage the GNG requires, and since he fulfills the GNG requirement, many times over, he is notable. Period.

    Sorry, but I think I may detect in your comment a kind of editorializing I have seen in other ((afd)). It seems to me that you aren't really disputing the massive coverage Jackson has triggered, including i highbrow publications like the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal -- because you can't dispute the massive coverage. It is there for anyone who knows how to perform a web search to find. Rather, I am afraid it seems to me that what you are really saying is that Jackson shouldn't be considered notable. You and I aren't reliable, verifiable, authoritative sources. We don't get to start articles on topics we consider important, just because we consider them important, if no reliable, verifiable authoritative sources have ever written about that topic. The flip side of this is that even if you and I personally agree very strongly that a certain topic is B.S., is trivial, is not worth writing about, or thinking about -- but the authors of reliable, verifiable, authoritative sources, like the NYTimes, or the Wall Street Journal, have not agreed with us, and have written extensively on that topic, we have no choice but to set aside our personal feelings, and accept that the well covered topic has more than fulfilled our notability criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the reasons in the last afd. Nothing has changed, the man has had his fifteen minutes,TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes? With a DOJ investigation on the use of force by his department during his tenure, and an FBI investigation to boot? More like a few years. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...by his department..." WP:NOTINHERIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the department that he leads. Same as we will have an article on the CEO of a company, if the company was embroiled in a controversy during his tenure in which he played a central part. Jackson meets by a wide margin the notability guidelines, and his notability will continue to raise during coming months when the grand jury investigation concludes. And no, that is not WP:CRYSTAL, that is a fact. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There may be 9,999 other Chiefs of Police forces of comparable size in the USA, who we shouldn't be covering, because nothing they have said or done has triggered a firestorm of controversy and coverage as the personal choices Jackson has made. Maybe among those 9,999 other Police Chiefs 9,900 have done exemplary jobs, and haven't done anything to trigger coverage. We shouldn't cover them in individual articles, because their examplary performance is already covered in the general articles on Policing. And, if there are 99 other Police Chiefs who have made personal choices just as controversial as Jackson's we shouldn't cover them either, because they got away with. They slipped under the media's radar. Their controversial personal choices haven't triggered significant coverage, so they don't meet the criteria for a standalone article. This leaves us with Jackson, and whoever was the Chief of Police of LA, during the Rodney King riots, and whoever was Chief of Police of NOLA during Hurricane Katrina. Notable, by virtue of the massive significant coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • You predict Jackson will be forgotten? Wow, that seems incredibly unlikely. We have already had several major newspapers and TV channels prepare long profiles, specifically about him personally. When coverage of someone rises to the level it has in his case the Press doesn't forget. A year from now, or five years from now, when another Chief of Police exercises similarly controversial judgment, reporters will compare the two Chiefs. This is what reporters do. Count on it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MrX, Cwobeel, and GeoSwan's comment. "BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." The subject has clearly had extensive media/promotional coverage, including giving "scheduled interviews to national media" and "holding press conferences". Subject was a speaker who has "garnered significant independent, non-local coverage". Subject "holds a position of preeminence, power or authority". And while the new DOJ investigation is arguably a 'second event', can we really doubt Jackson has, at minimum, played "a major role in one major event"???
  Chief Jackson is not a "low profile individual"-- BLP1E is thus inapplicable.Darmokand (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NeilN's comments, WP:BLP1E, and previous AfD. Arzel (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be ridiculous by all standards to have an article on Riley Reid and not on this person. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So change our notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to change anything, as this person meets the notability threshold by a respectable margin . - Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a bio to fall within the limitations of WP:BLP1E, it needs to meet all three conditions described there, and Jackson does not meet any of them. The persistent coverage is another element that makes Jackson not falling within the BLP1E criteria. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made for #3. #1 and #2 clearly do apply. I don't believe his role is substantial enough to satisfy #3, but I can see that being an argument. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Multiple events: The shooting of Michael Brown and how he handled it, the three weeks unrest that followed and his role in it, ongoing investigations of his department by the DOJ and the FBI.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. No chance of that given the upcoming grand jury decision, and the eventual release of the FBI and the DOJ investigations (In both cases: if the department he leads is found to have broken the law, or if he is cleared)
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. An abundance of local, national and internationals sources, including dedicated profile pages in many media outlets makes him a central actor.

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is just gaming the rule via strategic time-slicing. Under the same logic, my brushing my teeth is really a series of many discrete events.

2. Plain crystal balling. You're just assuming that he is going to turn out to be a central figure in the investigation.

3. If, as you argue, Jackson's role is both "substantial" and "well-documented", and that he is clearly a "central actor", how come the article doesn't yet have a single detail about his involvement or role? And let's also note that since this is an investigation, there's no guarantee of there being anything to see here. The accusations may amount to nothing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great comparison with tooth brushing (really?). Of course he is mentioned in both articles. Fifteeen times in the shooting article, and five times on the unrest article. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was indeed a very apt analogy. If you didn't quite understand, I can explain further.

Anyway: I didn't say anything about him being mentioned multiple times in Wikipedia articles. I was referring to him having a documented, substantive role in the DOJ investigation, which is so far entirely lacking. Without that, he's just BLP1E. Even with that, it's debatable whether we're truly talking about more than one event for BLP1E purposes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is why we are debating! This is the way I see it: If he was the chief of police when a controversial shooting took place, and that's it, BLP1E would apply. But he was also the Chief of Police that used militarized response to protests which resulted in him being forced to cede authority (this does not happen often). The Missouri Governor made a scathing assessment of his competence in dealing with the unrest. In addition, his four years tenure as chief of police is being investigated by the DOJ regarding use of force. And add to it the fact that the FBI is conducting a separate investigation of his department. These are non-trivial events directly related to the subject of the article, and although sequential events, they are all distinct, highly notable events, and very well covered by local, national and international press. That is why BLP1E does not apply. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well since you don't seem to have responded to my objection about the time-slicing, I'll just comment again that IMO this is just artificially parsing events in order to try to turn one incident into many incidents, when really all we're really seeing is a single event and its aftermath. Hence BLP1E. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "time slicing" argument is what I am debating. What I presented is evidence that these are all separate events, not one continuum as you argued. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (marginal redirect?) Seems non-notable BLP1E to me. Also per the previous AFD. (I also wonder why and how an article that was deleted a couple of days ago is back.) Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but your question "...wonder why and how an article that was deleted a couple of days ago is back..." suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's deletion policy. Recreation of previously deleted material is subject to speedy deletion. What we have here is a BRAND NEW DRAFT. User:Cwobeel is on record that he was unaware that there had been a previous version when he or she started this version. This new version shares no passages with the deleted article, so anyone arguing that it be deleted has to participate in a brand new ((afd)).

    Deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic, not the current state of the article. I suggest either the delete !voters in the first ((afd)) forgot that, or that this is a fast moving topic and additional references arrived in the intervening weeks, that made clear that the topic of Thomas Jackson now measures up to the GNG.

  • As for the repeated nonsense meme that Jackson is a peripheral player in a single event... On the day of the shooting Michael Brown and Darren Wilson were the primary players and Jackson was a peripheral player. But Jackson then made administrative and PR decisions so controversial that he had his authority to Police his own city stripped from him when first the County Police and then the State Police were ordered in. Are you old enough to remember when President Eisenhower had to order in the regular Army to enforce SCOTUS desegregation in Little Rock Arkansas? (Arkansas's Governor had called up the National Guard militia to prevent desegregation.) This kind of event -- higher authority ordering a more senior level of policing to take over from a more junior level of policing -- it is almost unprecedented. It is a brand new event by any logical measure, and Jackson is right at the center of it. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the sort of POV editorializing that we reserve for reliable sources. You are essentially saying: there are going to be important sources saying what I just said. Crystal balling.

Also, calling the opposing argument a "nonsense meme" is just silly and childish. I suggest stopping.

I'm sure the point is well-taken about it being an accident that this article was re-created shortly after deletion, but that doesn't mean we need to come up with new reasons to delete if the old ones still apply. The fact that new prose has been generated really doesn't change things. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete BLP1E. Brown and Wilson do not have articles, his involvement in the incident is nonexistent, and in the aftermath while important is just one of many. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown has no article because he is dead, and indeed fits BLP1E. Wilson is now in hiding due to concerns about his safety and very little has been reported on him; that will not change in the future regardless of the outcome. Jackson's involvement cannot have been "nonexistent", because we have abundant sources about his involvement. Just read the comments above yours. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By nonexistent I am referring to the shooting itself. He has involvement with the aftermath, to be sure. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown & Wilson are low profile and BLP1e might apply to them. But Chief Jackson is paid to give interviews, press conferences, etc. He hold a special position of authority. BLP1e isn't made for public figures like celebrities, politicians, or other non-low-profile individuals. Darmokand (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how high was his profile before this one event? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also similar article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_S._Johnson Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per WP:1E BlueSalix (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the fry. Nice choice for your first edit after a long forced break. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A statistical majority of my edits are in AfD and RfC discussions. There's no WP:CONSPIRACY. BlueSalix (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not think that BLP1E is applicable. I do not think there is any point in rehashing the arguments made above in this AfD, so I won't. James500 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest This is a tough call for me. Nonetheless, I make my !vote or the following reasons. While consensus can change, it might take more than 15 days; therefore I am reluctant to ignore just closed AfDs. Furthermore, we do not have many articles on police chiefs in suburban municipalities with a population of 22,000. This indicates such practice is such officials tend not to be notable. Indeed, most of Jackson's coverage is in the context of the Michael Brown shooting and the ensuing unrest, and he is is properly discussed in article about those event. It may be there will be more coverage about him, and his notability can be revisited at that juncture. Further, while his department may be under investigation, merely being under federal investigation is not grounds for notability.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 21 September 2014 (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.