Arrest of Jacob Gregoire: Fails WP:SUSTAINED / WP:PERSISTENCE .  The only reliable coverage dates to a two month period in Feburary-March 2014.  Fire Law Blog, as its names suggests, is the personal blog of Curt Varone.  Indy100 as The_Independent#Indy100 , notes, selects stories based on upvotes by readers, which doesn't indicate long-term significance.  The event doesn't have seem to have been a precedent or catalyst for something else.  This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation , as specified at Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Lasting_effects .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Police , United States of America ,  and California .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fire Service CT55555 ( talk ) 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As article creator.  This was a notable event that provoked policy change, a legal case, national (CNN) and international (BBC) media attention.  Coverage occurred in 2014 and 2020 so is WP:SUSTAINED.  Indeed one later source is a blog, the  blog of a fire service lawyer and author who writes about such issues.  I would not call that a "personal blog" it's clearly a professional publication by an expert.  It's not New York Times quality, but I think it's worth considering.  Background Wikipedia as a clear policy on professional blogs Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (from WP:BLOGS ) so please note Varone's book Legal Considerations for Fire & Emergency Services published by Fire Engineering Books & Videos in 2020.  On his expertise, see 1 WP:BLP1E is appropriate to mention here.  Indeed it is what informed my decision to start the article.  BLP1E exists to help us understand if, in the circumstances of an event reaching notability guidelines, we should create an article about the individual, the event or both (from WP:BIO1E ).  Following that guidance, I think a biographical article would not be well supported, which is why I created the event article.  This article is doing what BLP1E calls for.  WP:NOTNEWS guides is to avoid "original reporting" (none is included) to consider enduring notability (above I note the coverage in 2014 and up to 2020) and to avoid Who's Who type things (I created an event, not a bio) and to avoid gossip (this is all well sourced, not celebrity gossip) so WP:NOTNEWS is fully met.  WP:SUSTAINED is also relevant, and again it was the context of the coverage after the event, plus also the international nature of the press coverage but also the impact of the event that I think is what makes this event important (policy change and a legal case).  I see no policy-based reason to discount a reliable source just because of its editorial policy of popularity.   Relevant event notability criteria not mentioned above include WP:DEPTH (I think met) and WP:DIVERSE (I think robustly met).  Just to quickly give some sources to justify my WP:GNG assertion: 1 2 3 4 There are all significant coverage in reliable sources.  In summary, this article meets all the criteria for what a wikipedia event article should look like.  Something happened, it captured national and international attention, it led to major other events, there as significant coverage in reliable sources.  The event was short lived, but it was impactful.  Obviously, I think we should keep it.  CT55555 ( talk ) 19:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: The original justification to delete has been altered.  It now says there was no lasting effects of the incident.  The news article that follows talks about how in addition to an investigation that was ongoing at the time of the news, the Fire and the Police service will change their protocols and training in light of the incident: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/chula-vista-firefighter-handcuff-chp-incident-leads-to-protocol-review/59017/ That's not as strong as an example as in the "Lasting Effects" but it seems like two material lasting effects.  CT55555 ( talk ) 00:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A blog, even if by an expert, isn't good enough to pass WP:SUSTAINED .  I think having an article specifically about an otherwise low profile living person getting arrested also presents WP:BLP issues (which per WP:DEL-REASON is a reason to delete an article).  People are going to google this guy's name and see that he has an entire wikipedia article about him getting arrested.  I think that's an issue.  -- Tristario ( talk ) 00:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a video of him doing a press event about the issue: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/on-air/as-seen-on/firefightersotweb_san-diego/2079512/ CT55555 ( talk ) 00:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In 2014, in the aftermath of the incident.  He's still low profile in the present as far as I can see.  Tristario ( talk ) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He was doing press events.  And so was his lawyer.  If your concern is that this article might reflect badly on him, that seems unlikely considering the actual content, as I think any reasonable reading of the article only paints him in a good light.  Also actual news of the event will be at the top of any searches about him what ever happens.  The global news on this event will follow him what ever happens.  I think the wikipedia article gives nuance and context.  If your concern is his reputation (a valid concern to have) then I suggest that keeping this up serves his interests best, as Wikipedia will probably out rank the tabloid coverage, which isn't cited, but is also happening.  CT55555 ( talk ) 01:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If I google "Jacob Gregoire" the only thing I see specifically about him getting arrested on the first page is this wikipedia article.  And the difference between wikipedia articles and news articles is that news articles tend to go down in the results and disappear over time.  But Wiki articles can stay at the top forever.  Tristario ( talk ) 01:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : After I typed a lengthy rebuttal of the reasons to delete, the justification has been changed.  Requesting editors don't add to things once people have replied to them, it's an unfair way to conduct a deletion discussion.  CT55555 ( talk ) 00:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is not a notable WP:EVENT - there appears to be limited WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of 'police arrest fire fighter', without substantial coverage of the later court case - the outcome is not even clear.  There does not appear to be a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance or a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group .  WP:BLPCRIME suggests we should also seriously consider not having an article about someone who is not a public figure and only accused of a crime.  BLP policy applies to event articles, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 07:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As per others, this was a sensationalized non-event that only serves to violate BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete viral videos of minor arrests are not a basis to build an article on, especially when there are BLP concerns.  -- Jayron 32 12:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS .  CastJared ( talk ) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Acknowledge the incident was widely reported at the time but the later sources presented do not satisfy sustained or indepth coverage.  The Fire Law blog adds nothing new, merely repeats what happened.  The court case reference is WP:PRIMARY and as such doesn't support notability.  The Indy100 merely reports Twitter comments linking the incident to Black Lives Matter with no commentary/opinion by the writer as to whether the link is justified.  Need additional sourcing to support the "policy change"; the source highlighted suggesting better communication needed hardly amounts to a change in policy.  As sourcing stands the article falls within the scope of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED .  Notability has not been established.  Rupples ( talk ) 03:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and as per others and per WP:NOTNEWS .  Clearly fails WP:GNG as notability has not been shown.  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 06:13, 1 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete