Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Goodman (police officer)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Goodman (police officer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

Classic

WP:SOLDIER, but that's an essay. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

merge to
WP:BLP1E. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:GNG. He has been credited as the hero of the Storming of the Capitol for single-handedly saving the U.S. Senate from the mob. His extraordinary bravery has received in-depth coverage in major publications across the country and the world. It would be truly upside-down for the numbskull with the furry horned hat to have an article (AfD'd but kept as notable), while then deleting the article on the actual hero of the historic day. Cbl62 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Furry horned hat man hasn't been kept yet: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli. I agree it would be egregious if we kept one and not the other. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe it is right to keep this page; I also strongly disagree with keeping an insurrectionist article whilst they are still living, as it would be an encouragement for such people to pursue worldwide publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by APaul2020 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to
Jake Angeli, that person clearly had a much larger role as one of the primary faces/well-documented leaders of the riots. Plus other stuff exists, etc. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that his role was not as "substantial" as Jake Angeli. IMO his single-handedly saving the United States Senate from an advancing mob was quite a "substantial" contribution ... to the events of the day ... to American democracy ... and, yes, more substantial than a numbskull in costume living in his mother's basement. Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the question were "whose name do I hope will be remembered in the future", then I would obviously fully agree with you. But that's not what we're asking here. Assuming the second prong of BLP1E (that he remains low profile in the future), I don't see what further expansion to this article is possible without drifting into hypotheticals and OR (or just biographical facts totally unrelated to the event). Analysis like this is fleshed out by discussion what he may have prevented + commentary over a one minute video. Compare that to Angeli, where his actions drove news before, during, and after the coup. I think that "substantial" here is defined by importance within the scope of the event itself, not our emotional response to the person outside of the event.

I also didn't bring this up in my original comment because it's slightly outside of WP policy, but I full agree with Innisfree's comment about unwanted attention. I'm extremely hesitant to add more of a spotlight onto someone who will almost certainly be targeted for what he did. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a lot of reservations (I think my statement that his actions within the riots would only take up two sentences is holding), but after an additional week of following coverage of the insurrection I think Goodman's actions meet the "substantial" requirement of BLP1E. RS's consistently single him out and identify his actions as important. I still find comparisons to Angeli completely irrelevant, but at this point the coverage of Goodman meets 1E/GNG. Keep -- Alyo (chat·edits) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Passes
WP:GNG. This person is referenced regularly both with and without context, and will continue to be for years. As a result many people search to find out who he is and providing that information is a core role of Wikipedia. aerotheque (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Still considering but tend to think TOOSOON. Additionally in borderline BLP cases I believe it’s proper to consider the preference of the living person affected by our decision and here the attention appears unwanted by the otherwise low-profile subject. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per nom. Fails BLP1E. The reason we have BLP1E is for this exact situation. This is essentially a
WP:CONTENTFORK, and fails the guidelines for one. I might suggest that at some point, a List of people associated with 2021 storming of the US Capitol might be very appropriate. 174.254.194.76 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I detest "associated with" articles and categories. Who is "associated with" it? Donald Trump? Rupert Murdoch? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:1E. Too soon to consider the Gold Medal, as it has not yet been awarded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:1E states: "If an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Here, the event is, of course, one of the most significant in recent American history. And Goodman's role in the event is far more significant than that of Brenann (a mere eyewitness) in the JFK assassination. Goodman's heroism has been singled out and acclaimed by politicians across the political spectrum (how often does that happen?) and prevented the events from turning far more tragic than they would have been had the mob been able to enter the Senate chamber before it could be evacuated. Goodman is, IMHO, the very model of a figure who warrants a stand-alone article and a situation where WP:1E should not be applied. Cbl62 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Then you probably know that I am amenable to altering my !vote at AfD discussions in the face of compelling arguments. The article looks really sketchy. Its possible that more information may become available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do which is why I responded. The coverage has grown every day this week, and I've been updating the article quite a bit today, and will continue to do so tomorrow. H. Res. 305 is currently pending to award him the Congressional Gold Medal, though it's unclear when it will be put to a vote. Cbl62 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I (nom) would change my !vote to keep per
WP:ANYBIO if/when he receives the Congressional Gold Medal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Same; but for now “if/when” is the source of my TOOSOON feeling... Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Passes
WP:GNG. --Cologinux (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No need to delete, IMO. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. Keep. Here's a BLP1e that rises above the single event, per ongoing coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Any decision prior to action being taken on the Congressional Gold Medal resolution might be premature. That said, award of the Medal, in and of itself, might not confer sufficient notability to cause the page to be kept, as not all previous Congressional Gold Medal recipients are the subject of individual pages. In terms of precedent, one might give consideration to the existence of individual pages for Officer Leslie Coffelt, of the then White House Police, who died in the line of duty during the Blair House assassination attempt on President Truman, and Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, both killed in the line of duty during the 1998 Capitol attack. Two of the three (Coffelt and Gibson) killed or wounded, respectively, the assassins - all three died. Goodman didn't die, but he effectively prevented what would have been a potentially significant loss of life by a pretty impressive display of thinking on his feet under circumstances in which he also put his personal safety at considerable risk. It seems to me to be a notable enough example of proactive thinking versus the reflexive responses of Coffelt and Gibson in their final moments of life. Is there less notoriety or credit or notability to be had for saving lives of all ilk then there is in taking lives? I believe I saw someone raise the question as to whether anyone will remember Officer Goodman or his actions a decade or two hence. Does anyone really think very many people remember Leslie Coffelt 70 years after his untimely death? If it weren't for a wikipedia page, pretty much no one would - and that would be a sad thing, because what he did is worth remembering, as is what Eugene Goodman did - and it's the more important because the CPD will not come out of this looking pretty - that his heroic actions stand as a testament to those CPD officers who did do their best in a bad situation. Having babbled to this point, I guess that I'm saying Keep Irish Melkite (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources and coverage are there and the Congressional Gold Medal seals it. I think the examples of Keith Palmer (police officer) and those given above by Melkite demonstrate the validity of the article. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Swan So Fine, To be clear, he hasn't received the medal yet. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Passes WP:GNG --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per No Swan So Fine. Autarch (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger/Redirect for now, per BLP1E. This is a low-profile individual who took part in an important event, and who can be covered in the main article. The subject's wishes should also be considered, i.e. this is from the coverage of him: Friends who have talked to Goodman since the riot, including two fellow officers and a former colleague, said he has been ambivalent about the limelight. Generally private and reserved, the D.C. native has started to worry about becoming a potential target of far-right extremist groups that have vowed to return to D.C. this weekend and for next week’s inauguration. Source: WaPo. If Goodman raises his profile, then a stand-alone article can be considered. In the present situation, it's better to cover him in the main article which has more eyes on it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goodman has expressed concern about his safety from right-wing extremists, and for that reason we should absolutely not permit insertion of personal details (e.g., where he lives, family information, etc.) into the article, but his heroic actions have received worldwide coverage (and deservedly so), and it is entirely appropriate for us to have a stand-alone article memorializing his heroic and historic actions in safeguarding the Senate. Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli has now been closed as "Keep". It would be really bizarre for Wikipedia to keep the article about the clown in the furry horned hat whilst "deleting" the article about the day's most significant hero, a man whose remarkably alert and courageous actions saved the Senate from the mob. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Sources and precedent establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. I am concerned for the role that personal esteem is taking in this discussion. If someone came along and said, “This is
WP:IDONTLIKEIT), that would not be a deletion argument any more than admiration (ILIKEIT) is an inclusion argument. A Wikipedia page is not a reward for meritorious behavior, not least because some people, especially some otherwise low-profile people, won’t experience having one as a good thing. I really think this should be read on straight BLP policy without reference to heroism or OTHERSTUFF. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to the article on the storming. This is the standard response when we have someone so connected with just one incident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, ordinarily I'd agree with you, but there is so much coverage already, and if the Congress gets this medal of honor through quickly it's really a done deal. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We base decisions on keeping articles on the reality of the present, not hypotheticals of the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, today is 20 January, so that future came pretty quickly, given that he is now acting Sergeant at Arms. So maybe "we" can change our minds. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to a Keep, but am wondering whether TOOSOON. Zawed (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received a ton of national attention to easily pass GNG. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.23.90 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received a ton of INTERnational attention to easily pass GNG. --87.170.206.245 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As more information is coming out, this officer is likely to be viewed historically as a pivotal figure in American history. He will probably soon receive medals and commendations. He is noteworthy because had he not acted, it's possible that America could have slid towards autocracy, or civil war, and historians will write about that. I also want to point out that editors should be careful about how this deletion would be viewed in the context of racial bias, given the focus on white officers and protestors in other articles. Quintin3265 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Way past GNG. AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Wikipedia has no deadline for deletion of articles. The subject seems to pass
WP:GNG regarding their involvement in a historic American event. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm watching the inaugeration and he's been given the role of escorting Harris in, as part of his commendation for this. I have to agree this is far beyond BLP1E due to the commendations he's gotten already and the likely chance he will get a Congressional Medal of Honor for this. --Masem (t) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (EC) He’s at the Inauguration with the Vice-President-elect as, per CBS News, acting Deputy House Sargent-at-Arms; this resolves my concern that we were turning the WP spotlight on a low-profile person who intended to stay that way. For next time I do hope we’ll wait for the dust to settle if harm to a living, low-profile person could be involved, but anyway here we are. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYT says Dep Senate SAA, not House. In any case... Innisfree987 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable in and of himself, the article (which could be expanded to be honest) shows he is notable and since the attack on the Capitol he has been appointed to a position in the House of Representatives. So he is not known only for one thing (unless you expand that definition - plenty of congressmen/-women are notable only for being elected to Congress, but they all have pages). 82.36.115.88 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BLP1E is very very clear. It applies to LOW PROFILE individuals. When an individual gets some RS coverage, and that quickly or slowly changes them from an unknown individual to a HIGH PROFILE individual then BLP1E does not apply.

I am going to {{
ping
}} everyone who claimed BLP1E, and hasn't withdrawn it, and dare them to re-read BLP1E to verify they misread BLP1E.

I looked up Goodman, who I recognized from 2021-01-06 video, but didn't know by name, just a few minutes ago, while watching CNN's coverage of the inauguration. They named him as he was especially chosen to guard the VPOTUS, and he has already been given a promotion. CRYSTALBALL, but these are only the beginning of the honors he will receive.
Just like
Chesley Sullenberger
he is marked. He is someone to watch. I encourage all of you to start a google news alert on him.

That ping @AleatoryPonderings, Mangoe, K.e.coffman, and Mztourist: Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC) _{missed @Hawkeye7:}[reply]
Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual says A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event.. This sure seems like an accurate description of Goodman. The single event is the Capitol storming. Again, I would be perfectly happy to vote keep if he is awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. But I don't think I've misread BLP1E. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugene_Goodman_(police_officer)&oldid=1001645032"~~