Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 University of Utah Hospital incident

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 keep. the consensus seems to be for keeping as a significant event. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 University of Utah Hospital incident

2017 University of Utah Hospital 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 14:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - This is quite a highly publicized and notable incident that could change law enforcement protocol. At a bare minimum, it should be merged with history in tact to University_of_Utah_Hospital#History. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "This could change law enforcement protocol." Well, it's already changed police policies. That, combined with the changes to hospital protocol, and the widespread media coverage, should make this incident pretty
      notable. ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Really? A change to the local policy protocol (not national, not even statewide, but local) is making something notable? That's setting the bar very, very low. Incidents like this happen all over the world every day, and constantly change how thngs are done locally. That doesn't make them a notable event in the WP sense.
        Fram (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This is just news, not an encyclopedically notable event. Mention it in the article on the individual (limitedly, subject to
  WP:COATRACK), but not worth an independent article. Guesswork that it maight change the law does not persuade me. If, in fact, it does end up changing the law, presumably there will be a notable court case, and we can have an article on that. TJRC (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - ...And the civil rights investigation just changed my mind. Word of advice that every writer should follow: wait for the subject to become notable instead of making well-meaning editors like Fram waste their time with this AfD. There is no rush to hastily put together what was basically a news report rather than an encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is far from a 15 minute news item. It is as notable as the Rodney King Beating was when it first became public knowledge. // Internet Esquire (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Netesq you cannot possibly be seriously, comparing this to King and the LA riots which go hand in hand with his beating. A terribly daft hyperbole to say the least.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am seriously comparing this to the King beating, which I distinctly remember as breaking news. The riots came much later, after the first criminal trial and acquittal. The ongoing criminal investigation of Detective Jeff Payne and others involved in the arrest of Nurse Wubbels is and will remain notable. I might add that The King beating, savage as it was, was not the first or worst case of police brutality caught on tape. Similarly, Nurse Wubbels is not the first nurse to be arrested for refusing a blood draw, neither is she the first to have her arrest videotaped. The impact of her arrest on public opinion is and will remain notable. // Internet Esquire (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  up to the reader to decide for now. ^Falling_Gravity 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You cite "widespread (national or international) impact" and then go on to discuss local impact. That's why it isn't a notable event.
    Fram (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It seems like every day we get more evidence that this incident has had a national impact. Yesterday we learned the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating the case and helping local investigators. ^Falling_Gravity 16:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The video was viewed tens of millions of times over the course of a week and had extensive media coverage. It has lead to policy changes at the hospital in question and may very well have effects elsewhere. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYSTALBALL before making such an assertion. Perhaps consider applying these policies and changing your vote. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but we have WikiNews if this type of story interests you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: In my opinion, this does meet our standards for inclusion, especially now that the District Attorney has asked the FBI to investigate potential civil rights violations under the color of authority.[9] I would also note that when I see an AfD where every delete !vote goes unchallenged and every keep !vote immediately receives one or more critical comments in response, I begin to suspect
  WP:BLUDGEONING
  . I am not saying that this is the case here, but I would caution that it seems to be leaning that way. --06:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Bluedgeoning, or an indication that many of the keeps were (or contained) poorly thought out statements. "It is as notable as the
  Fram (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Implied assumption: The administrators who evaluate AfDs are incapable of identifying poorly thought out statements unless you educate them. In my opinion, you should put your best argument in your !vote and not comment on others unless they actually make a factual error, as opposed to an argument that you disagree with. And that is the last thing I am going to write in this thread, so that I don't become part of the problem I am describing. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the assumption is that editors !voting should be made aware why their !vote is (partially) invalid or against policy. It's a discussion, not a vote, so discussing opinions one disagrees with (with of course an explanation of why you disagree, preferably based on policy and guidelines) is welcome.
  Fram (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Major news and notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FallingGravity has shown international sources that establish widespread notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - far from
  bizarre incident has already started changing police training and hospital procedures. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is also one of those only-in-Wikipedia connections between an Olympian and a SCOTUS case. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per
  WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2017 (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.