Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ousmane Zongo

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 There were good arguments in favor of deletion, however they did not seemed to be shared by many established users. If anyone desires I will expand on my reasoning. JoshuaZ 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane Zongo

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable dead perp. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. The only tragedy here is for P.O. Bryan Conroy and his family. We do not need articles about every stupid perp who gets killed. Giuliani Time 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to all. Notability is not about whether the subject of the article was a good or bad person. Nor is this a vote - the outcome will be decided on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. Thanks, Ben Aveling 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. The "stupid perp" was an apparently innocent person who was shot and killed by Officer Conroy in a high-profile case which resulted in a $3 million settlement and a prolonged trial. The New York Times has a four-page list of "articles about Ousmane Zongo" here. Note that this AfD was the user's second edit, after their own user page. bikeable (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ with extreme prejudice. If only someone used a drop gun we wouldn't even be talking about this less than noteworthy dead perp and we would not have ruined the life of a productive member of society and good police officer. Spring3100 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Spring3100 is a confirmed sockpuppet of Giuliani Time per checkuser - Case on RFCU. Many other votes are suspected to be socks but haven't been CUd yet. There's been some appalling abuse of the Wikipedia process by some users involved in this AFD and I hope and expect the banhammer to come down with force. --No more bongos 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck Spring3100's vote per No more bongo's comment above. bikeable (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Giuliani Time has shown a lack of sensitivity to the man who got killed by calling him a "stupid perp". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) .
Speedy delete Just another non-notable American crime victim. There must be thousands and they do not need their pathetic stories told. The article itself does seem like a blatant WP:NPOV violation and I do feel it does not meet WP:BIO's guidelines. The wole incident is tragic, but will not even be recalled in ten years. Lost Knob 03:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do need there stories told, lest it may happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) .
$3million is not pathetic Muntuwandi 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above comment made by User:Chifumbe impersonating another user as he used this ccde to falsely sign the comment: [User:Chifumbe|Muntuwandi]] Spring3100 04:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - there is nothing wrong with signing with an alias; the link still points appropriately to the user page. Remember WP:AGF. bikeable (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Yet another non-notable American villian. Moland Spring 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the villain, the guy who got killed???.

That is my wikipedia nickname and automatically pops up when i sign off with the four twiddles. So I am not impersonating anyone. It is me User:Chifumbe or Muntuwandi 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) same thing.[reply]

- Bloody Americans don't understand English! Go watch an episode of Z Cars or The Sweeney! Moland Spring 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - These shows sound good. Are they on DVD in the US? Noodles the Clown 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no region 1 release. TV Newser 13:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The case is notable and has been receiving a lot of publicity since 2003. The case mirrors that of Amadou Diallo who was shot 41 times by police 4 years earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) .
Delete per WP:BIO. Although the prejudice of the nominator is overwhelming, WP:BIO classifies his death as one news coverage, therefore he isn't notable enough. Keep - after re-examination, I think the extreme scope of the coverage counts as more than enough to establish notability. Amadou Diallo also sets a little bit of precedent. --Daniel Olsen 05:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in the New York Times. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:BIO. Just because you are stupid enough not to listen to the cops and get yourself dead, doesn't make you notable, it just makes you stupid and dead no matter how many times you were mentioned in The Times. Noodles the Clown 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see also unarmed people shot by police Muntuwandi 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scarykitty 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article was nominated in Bad faith. Not to mention the user who nominated this article for deletion has made what i consider to be a personal attack. see[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) .
Delete Maybe if he got a plunger shoved up his ass and exposed a corrupt and violent police culture, he would be a keeper, but it appears he was just some guy who got killed in a tragic accident. Buckner 1986 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad faith nomination presumably for political reasons, subject seems to be reasonably newsworthy --Aim Here 12:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination, and lots of ignorance being displayed here. — BrianSmithson 12:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a bad faith nomination, but it does need to be deleted. The only reason for the existance of the article appears to basically to be NYPD bashing. User:Chifumbe seems to be involved with a few other articles in the same vein, which also should be deleted. The article is also in a few definitely not neutral categories which should be looked into either modifying or deleting as they are major WP:NPOV violations. The article is really of describing one tragic incident of little note. As a New Yorker I am personally offended that this sort of blatantly hateful article is on here and wish it excised forthwith. This is really a 10-13 situation. TV Newser 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very high profile case and appears to be a bad faith nomination. A whole host of New York Times articles as well. --Cloth Ears 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all above. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times stuff makes this notable enough in my book. Th ε Halo ^Θ 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no predjudice against a later AfD by an established contributor. WP:AGF but a nomination by a first day contributor with an obvious agenda to push is borderline speedy keep and close.--Isotope23 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV skew. Car Pix 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us remember that WP:POV is not a reason to delete an article that is otherwise notable and verifiable. Anyone who finds the article to be POV should edit it. bikeable (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. Meets WP:BIO ("Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"), but keep only if the NYT sources are now added to the article itself. Sandstein 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just felt disgusted when i relised an innocent man doing his job was punished and the mans family got 3$million; non-notable, not NPOV. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, non-notable incident and 10-64V. 10-98! Belly Flop Patrol 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable victim or perpetrator, however you choose to look at it. Only "one coverage" per WP:BIO. Arguably, an article could exist for the officer Bryan Conroy, who was found guilty of a serious offense for which the state was heavily fined. Ohconfucius 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass the WP:BIO test, per Ohconfucius, et. al. Borox 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Truthbringer. Hornplease 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per bikeable nominated by new user on second edit and the actual subject is notable documented by new york times Yuckfoo 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, incident with verifiable and encylopedic repercussions. Shouldn't really be considered a biography, so renaming would be an option. Kappa 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this case was plastered all over the news... notable wrongful death lawsuit. ALKIVAR™ 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiable, yes, but notable, no. OBILI 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote may be skewed, as there is a call for the article's deletion at Gothamist where there are comments such as "sock puppets rule" TBTA 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The stronger agrument seems to be for deletion while the keep argument seems very week. I support deletion. AC Ginger Ale 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's third edit. [2] William Pietri 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information. Kevlar 42 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's third edit. [3] William Pietri 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close I suggest we move forward to keep this article and close the discussion. The main reason being its nomination was not done in good faith. The nomination was the second edit by a new user which is highly indicative of sock puppetry. The article is notable as per coverage by the New york times. This includes 33 articles on the case spanning the course of three years from his death in 2003 to the court settlement in 2006.[4]. Muntuwandi 10:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anyone should have an article it is Bryan Conroy not this dead perp. Never forget the 343 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's fourth edit. [5] William Pietri 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a local incident, so of course The New York Times would have coverage of it, as they would most of the other crimes and what not in the city - it was not a national story, just a local one, as the bulk of the reporting was in the Metro section of the paper. In this case, the New York Times test gives a false positive, as it would for most local NYC stories. Most of the media coverage on TV was basically typical Al Sharpton publicity hounding. Just because it happened in the city doesn't mean it is important. If this happened in Detroit, Omaha, or some small town in the midwest would it wouldn't have been on the radar. Amadou Diallo is notable but Ousmane Zongo is not, since the only thing that came of it was the poor police officer who shot accidently the guy got his life ruined and Al Sharpton got what he desires most - TV time. TBTA 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nomination. Sufficient non-trivial coverage of the case to make the content verifiable and in compliance with WP:BIO. I think this debate is one of the most depressing ones I have read around here. There is no excuse for calling an innocent man shot by police a "stupid perp". There's also no excuse for sockpupettry and I sure hope that admins will take action in this case. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straight up news conflation. Eusebeus 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yep I also followed the original story back then. This definetly is a bad faith nomination and the media trial of the policeman at that time was testimony to this fact. -- Aiditor 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep primarily per Kappa above. Also, although not a basis for ultimate decision, the tone of some of the comments here is highly troublesome. Any decent supporter of police officers would recognize that what happened in this incident was a tragedy for everyone. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to NYT coverage. Worried about various editors seeking to delete anything that might display the police or individual officers in anything less than 100% positive light. This seems like an attempt by a small number of people to censor wikipedia and must not be tolerated. --No more bongos 13:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because CFIF thinks it is a good article. CBS 10 Philadelphia 15:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Second vote by vandal account which was later blocked indefinitely. bikeable (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Serial sock struck. Several others may well be present in this debate also. -Splash - tk 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 264 Newsbank articles on the subject say bad faith nomination. A couple of incivility blocks are in order too. ~ trialsanderrors 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a big story. Maybe one day it will fade, but for now it it worth keeping. The police officer should also have an article, I believe, but that's a different page. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 19:17, 11 September 2006 (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.