Deletion of Anthony Bologna

Comment: per .  Doesn't even read like a real bio.  More like an attack page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Obvious  article, and consequently a  problem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: on the basis that it is a |biography of a living person known for only one event. It would have been best not to mention "BLP2E" in the nomination, but what's done is done.  In my view, the 2004 incident is non-notable, except that investigative journalists have recently unearthed and revived discussion of that incident, but only in the context of researching Bologna's background because of the 2011 incident.  I do not believe that the 2004 incident has the sort of independent notability required to overcome .  Off2riorob did a good job of summarizing the arguments against this article early on, and Bbb23 also offered a good overview of the issues.  I agree, in particular, with the deletion arguments advanced by Collect and DGG.  ScottyBerg did a good job of critiquing the manifest weaknesses of the older sources.  Jarhed made many good points, although I disagree with Jarhed's specific contention that if Bologna was notable, there would already have been an article about him before the recent incident.  Instead, I would simply say that he was non-notable, so whether or not to have an article about him was not an issue until recent weeks.  I favor inclusion of neutral, well-referenced coverage of this pepper-spray incident in Occupy Wall Street, but I oppose a free-standing biography of this police officer at this time.  A redirect is fine with me as his name is a plausible search term
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Article has |significant coverage in |reliable third party sources. The topic meets the |notability guidelines for biographies. The subject is notable for more than one event.  therefore does not apply. Creating a BLP2E is a slippery slope, if we were to create such a policy where would it end? What next, a proposal to create a BLP3E policy? In any event, coverage has continued ''after'' the event took place. Even if it were only one event, it wouldn't apply because there has been persistent coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IRS||WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Article fails . To the extent Bologna's pepper spraying, after adjudication, constituted quasi-criminal conduct, the article also fails . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME)

Comment: The  concern is inapplicable on its face, given that Bologna has not been accused of a crime, and the article does not assert that he has committed a crime.  The BLP arguments seem just as absurd.  Anthony Bologna is an internationally-famous, high-ranking government official, who had already been described as "top brass" in a 2010 New York Daily News article (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-02/local/27063246_1_stats-show-big-move-shootings), and was the subject of the multiple biographical pieces that are noted in the article.  His involvement in alleged civil rights violations during demonstrations surrounding the 2004 National Convention has been noted in some of the most important media outlets in the world, from the NY Times to the UK Guardian to the Atlantic monthly.  A total of 26,800 web pages are presently returned from a google search for "anthony bologna" 2004 (including the quotation marks), with many top results coming from major media sources.  Some editors have pointed out that the 2004 incident wasn't big news until after the 2011 incident came to light.  But how is that in any way relevant?  There's absolutely nothing in the rule that says that press coverage must be contemporaneous with the event.  If anything, this just shows that much of the media have exactly the same rule that Wikipedia does, with many articles only discussing the 2011 event because of the existence of the 2004 event, and vice-versa.  Maybe  should be modified to say that every newsworthy event has to be covered in the media at the same time as they actually happened.  But that's not the rule, so, until that change is made, we should apply the rule the way it is written, right?  And right now, today, Bologna is famous for, and has received international mainstream press coverage for, both separate incidents.  Accordingly, BLP1E cannot possibly apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I didn't say NYPD precinct commanders are inherently notable. I questioned your circular assertion that notability requires the preexistence of a Wikipedia article. This subject is notable because he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the article isn't any of the things which Wikipedia is . Those are Wikipedia's criteria for notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is a classic case of , an article about an obscure New York City police official propelled to prominence by a ''single'' incident. I think it's important to quote the relevant portion of that policy: '''If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.''' Let's not pretend that there is any chance there would be an article on this official were it not for the pepper spraying incident, Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators|an article on which was justifiably merged with the article on the Wall Street demonstrations. The 2004 allegations are absolutely irrelevant to Bologna's notability, which relate to that single incident. The routine biographical details taken from a non-notable free-distribution handout weekly ("Downtown Express," a publication of questionable appropriateness for a BLP ), were added as a fig leaf. I echo Collect's comment and urge the closing administrator to take into consideration that many of the editors materializing here have had few edits apart from this subject area. It seems to me that this is a test case as to whether Wikipedia is serious about BLP, even when a mob of editors descends on an article or an AfD with the intent of circumventing it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: There are no sources other than media outlets echoing the |one event. The subject is in a video showing a bad thing (that is not before any court other than that of public opinion), and the subject has been mocked by Jon Stewart. The remaining content is puffery to disguise the fact that this article is an attempt to attack a subject using the encyclopedia that ''anyone can edit''. Recreate the article '''after''' something of encyclopedic value happens (regrettably, there are ''many'' incidents of citizens being badly treated around the world on a daily basis—Wikipedia should record only the |notable incidents and participants
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:N)

Comment: One news blurb of purely local/regional interest 5 years ago does not constitute an "event".  I have not seen such pathetic source stretching since the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson|Serene Branson war, and AfD that'd make a fitting precedent for this actually.  An old local event + a major event does not add up to 2, especially when no one paid much attention to the local event at the time, and it only gets some coverage because of #2.  To say that this case now surpasses 1E shows a frankly incompetent reading of what  is designed to prevent.  The officer is known for the current pepper-spray incident, nothing more.  As such, no article is warranted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: classic  and  (or 1.5E, at best). I don't know what all the shouting here is about, peeps
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . The prevalence of WP editors who are incapable of transcending |recentism will never cease to amaze me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: 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  facts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:WELLKNOWN)

Comment: While there are technically news articles covering him for more than one event, this sort of case seems to be in the spirit of the  guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The reliable sources indicate that the subject is notable for more than one event, though the 2004 events would not have been adequate sources to support an individual article for Bologna on their own.  I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how a keep is not obvious here - it appears to me that the argument being used is some sort of BLP+1E rather than simply BLP2E.  The contention appears to be that if a subject had not been quite notable enough for an article, being involved in ''one more'' event then should not serve to make that person notable.  If we were to accept this notion, we can extend BLP1E to BLP2E, to BLP3E, and by induction no one could become notable (or at least no article that we |don't like
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The 2005 and 2010 references represent substantial coverage in independent reliable sources prior to the Occupy Wallstreet incident. The subject already satisfied  before the event which brought him so much attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: and '''Move''' to Occupy Wall Street pepper-spray incidents. Much to my dismay, Anthony Bologna fails  (really BLP2E) and . But the '''incident''' itself is absolutely notable. It's been getting almost as much press coverage as the rest of Occupy Wall Street itself. Absolutely '''Keep''' most of this article but restructure it to be about the incident
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME)

Comment: 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 s 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Pass  and has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plain and simple
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Subject satisfies . One of the references is from 2005, which establishes coverage (and therefore, notability) over a range of time. BLP1E does not apply in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I haven't counted, but it seems about half the keep !votes rely on various |arguments to avoid. (It's useful! People are talking about him! He's a bad guy! Look at Google!) The closing admin should weigh these very little, if at all, especially given the external |canvassing mentioned above. The 2005 ''Downtown Express'' and 2010 DNAinfo.com fluff pieces amount to insignificant coverage in unreliable sources. The 2010 ''Daily News'' piece contains only trivial mention. The rest is just |coverage of one event or non-notable dirt dug up in response to that event. His order to arrest some guy in 2004 doesn't come close to being a |notable event. The |coatracking seems to have been mostly addressed, but |BLP1E still mandates deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA||WP:CANVASS||WP:BLP1E||WP:EVENT||WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP1E)