Statement of Nom:WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. 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 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary to keep: notable, in-depth, sustained coverage (event was in 2014, received coverage again in 2020), with national and international scope, in diverse sources. Is event article, not biographical per BLP1E. Became public figure after self and attorneys gave on-camera interviews.
Summary to delete: Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE as only reliable coverage from Feburary-March 2014. Is WP:SENSATIONAL, fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:PRIMARY because heavily based on personal blog by subject of article. Fails WP:BLPCRIME for not public figure.
Discussion samples
Survey sample: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: 1234 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)
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:
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)
Survey sample: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 07:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement of Nom: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The main reliable source with nontrivial coverage about this subject is this Wall Street Journal article. I found some miscellaneous coverage stemming from this article in CNN and The Telegraph, but the combination of these sources is insufficient at this time to justify encyclopedic notability. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E are also relevant: at the moment, we only know that Bils was the administrator of certain pro-Russia social media accounts, but there is no confirmation whether she was the source of any classified documents or whether she committed any crimes. A prior version of this article made many claims about her that were extremely poorly sourced (e.g. to tabloids or primary sources, which are both disallowed for sensitive BLP information, see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Mz7 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary to keep: Subject significant as part of 2023 Pentagon document leaks. Covered by multiple RS (WSJ and CNN only examples given). Subject built sizeable social media presence (implying public figure status?).
Survey sample:Delete - this combination of recent news, allegations, her statements, speculation, and tabloid coverage is not WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. The WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS policies further weigh against the encyclopedic value of this article at this time. Beccaynr 22:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Survey sample:Keep. The page is terribly written, but the subject is very significant in the big story of 2023 Pentagon document leaks, and her involvement was documented in publications by WSJ [1], CNN [2] and other RS [3], [4]. As sources say [5], "She built up a sizeable social media following on Twitter, Telegram and YouTube, emerging as the face of Russian propaganda, raising money and selling merchandise for the Russian cause.... Donbas Devushka Telegram account played a key role in the dissemination of intelligence documents allegedly leaked by Airman First Class Jack Teixeira, by reposting them onto an array of obscure online chat rooms. That needs to be said more clearly on the page. She is very much notable, hence the "keep". No one says she is actually committed a crime, and no, she was not the original source of information, but rather a facilitator, according to the publications. My very best wishes 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Outcome: merge 9, draftify 3, keep 18, speedy keep 3, weak keep 4, strong keep 1, delete 1 (counted with browser find text so counts may be off)
Statement of Nom:WP:BLP1E. This is the suspect in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks, from which his notability entirely derives. Most of the article describes him in the context of these leaks, and his biography is otherwise unremarkable. It is possible that during and after his likely trial, enough will be written about him as a person to warrant a separate article, but we are not yet at that stage. For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large. Sandstein14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Closing editor's summary: The result was keep . The BLP1E has particular force here, but I conclude there is a rough consensus that the article should be kept. While not everyone endorsed the same rationale, there appears to be a meeting of the minds that the subject qualifies as an exception by virtue of not being a low-profile individual, and due to significance of the actions attributed to him in reliable sources' reports of the events. There is a strong undercurrent to merge the article, and this discussion can continue on the appropriate pages, but I do not consider it to have overcome the consensus to keep in this discussion. Finally, I note that the article was indefinitely extended confirmed protected today; I support this action and would have done the same. Xymmax04:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary to keep: widespread continuous coverage. Allegations unique in that he shared classified intel with other Minecraft players, if he's found not guilty we can revisit later (!!!). Subject was arrested in a massive show of military force including helicopters and heavily armed/armored soldiers. Keep or delete together with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Consistency is important. Keep but delete WP:BLPGOSSIP material. Passes GNG and BIO.
Summary to merge: Not independently notable at present, WP:CRYSTAL to predict will become so, WP:NORUSH. Not a whistle blower like Snowden, Manning, etc.
Summary to draftify: too soon (accusation not enough, conviction would make notable)
Summary to delete: fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME. Conviction would make notable or will definitely happen is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Fails WP:BLPBALANCE, "The idea expressed in Eventualism". Not public figure, so fails BLP:CRIME. "WP:BLP1E needs all three criteria to me met. I have doubts that any of them are met."
Discussion samples
Survey sample:Strong keep. Agree fully with potential "BLP nightmare" concerns, and fully support the pushback against editor statements here that presume guilt, such as that of @Juneau Mike. The former, and manifestations in-article of the latter, can be addressed by careful editing (ensuring termes like "accused" and "alleged" are used throughout). But it is simply a matter of fact that, in the modern era, guilty or not, an individual accused of such a high-profile crime, and taken into custody in such a public and dramatic fashion—they become notable, and remain notable, even if eventually absolved. As a point of comparison, see the history of the article on Richard Jewell; as long as this individual has to be in the public spotlight, WP does a potential service, in fully applying its policies and guidelines, in the presentation of the best independent, verifiable, source-derived information on the title subject. Absent that, the web-browsing public, at best, only has access to individual reports (and so will often lack the breadth and scope that an encyclopedic presentation can provide). And at worst, they are subject to the whims of recommendation engines and click-baiting/biasing practices that do not necessarily elevate the most reliable reporting in general search results. No, there is a service to be provided here, and it can be done without violating WP standards. (a former university faculty member) (This comment was struck per WP:GS/RUSUKR applying to non-EC editors, but saying WP is a service to the accused for providing NPOV content that one might not get from self-guided Internet searches is compelling, and novel in my experience.)
Survey sample: Merge per WP:BLP1E. There may not be much to merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks, because sensational coverage about Teixeira should generally be excluded per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, and I removed anonymously-attributed content per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Per WP:BLP1E#1, all of the coverage is in the context of this single event. Per WP:BLP1E#2, Teixeira does not appear to meet the criteria outlined for a high-profile person in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, which includes, "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"; a merge is favored at this time to avoid giving undue weight to the event. And per WP:BLP1E#3, the role of this individual is "not well documented" because these are currently allegations. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Survey sample:Delete a BLP nightmare that falls under both WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. We have no idea what the outcome will be and we have people already saying he will be notable upon conviction. This can be covered in the article on the leaks. You simply cannot say his role was substantial unless he is found guilty. This should be redirected to the article on the leaks now and potentially deleted if the case falls apart. nableezy - 15:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
And for what makes this a BLP nightmare, consider the sentence currently in the article: Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that Teixeira had violated the Espionage Act. The Attorney General does not determine if somebody violated the law. Their office may charge somebody and they may say that they believe that somebody violated the law. We already have unambiguous BLP violations in this article, and that is what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to prevent. Nableezy 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement of Nom: Per WP:BLPCRIME, we shouldn't have articles about otherwise non notable persons accused of crimes (but not convicted). Fram 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Summary to merge: Merge to Goyim Defense League or a separate (as yet unwritten) article about Mike Chitwood (!vote later reversed because WP:BLPCRIME would still be violated).
Summary to delete: Fails WP:BLPCRIME due to non-notability of subject. Routine arrest that is not notable. WP:NOTNEWS
Discussion samples
Survey sample:Delete. Non-notable individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime are protected by WP:BLPCRIME. Wikipedia is not a police blotter, and we do not publish incriminating Wikipedia articles for every person whose arrest has been covered in the media. Cielquiparle 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Survey sample:Comment. WP:BLPCRIME clearly states, For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Merging this content, which really is focused on accusations against a non-notable individual, into another article, is still a violation of Wikipedia policy. Cielquiparle 00:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Survey sample:Merge with an as yet unwritten article about Sheriff Mike Chitwood, who appears to be quite outspoken in his views and is probably more notable than this particular person called Richard Golden. At least half the sources in the article appear to be related to Chitwood's statements and actions around the Goyim Defense League hate group. A dozen other group members have been arrested, so why single out Golden's arrest in particular? While one could argue that the crime is notable but this story wouldn't even be news if the victim was not the elected sheriff of Volusia County, Florida and previously the Police Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department. The double handful of Wikipedia articles I have found about the Arrest of <a person> appear to be notable because of the long term notability of the arrest itself, due to things like violence, photography, historical events, journalists or foreign nationals accused of spying, or other controversies where the arrest is condemned as being abusive or inappropriate. I don't see that here. - Cameron Dewe22:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: This was a non-admin closure by an account that was perma-banned a month later for socking.
Statement of Nom: This individual seems non-notable. He received non-substantive media coverage in 2020 because he offered free legal services. To the extent that this individual is known at all (he is allegedly known for his Twitter activity but he has only 31.5k Twitter followers), it was because of a single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E) in 2022 during the Canadian trucker convoy, as indicated by the references on the article. He then received minor coverage related to ensuing scandals. The article also makes claims about this individual having been alleged to have committed crimes (which are not the primary basis of his alleged notability) and for which he has not been convicted, in apparent contradiction of WP:BLPCRIME. This seems very much like BLP1E to me. Bueller 007 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement of article creator:Keep. (As article creator). WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant. The article makes no suggestion of criminality. I don't like him, but that's not relevant. WP:BLP1E would only apply if all three criteria were met, which would mean that:
reliable sources only mentioned him in the context of one event (he is mentioned in context of three events, criterion not met)
he is likely to remain low profile, as defined here: WP:LOWPROFILE (obviously not, he continues to make news and seek attention, criterion not met)
he didn't play an important role in the event(s) he is notable for (that is open to debate)
BLP1E is only applicable if each of three conditions is met (I quote from WP:BLP1E) so that's an obvious fail. What is relevant is if he meets the WP:GNG. I believe he does; I perceive that he is notable for his provision of free legal services in 2020, for his citizen journalism in 2022 and for more than one investigation into his legal work between 2022 and 2023. I present some examples of significant coverage about him here:
In summary: WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant, deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E fails on at least two of three criteria (check out WP:NOTBLP1E if you have doubts), WP:GNG (the key thing here) is met. CT55555 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: As of the time of CT's statement, the article said: In November 2022, Bowie was accused of providing legal services in exchange for sexual acts.[8] Three weeks later, the Law Society of Ontario seized his electronic devices as part of an investigation.[9] The next month, he was fined $5,000 and had his law license indefinitely suspended by the Law Society after failing to produce documentation and information requested by the society.[10] Earlier the same year, he practised law while his license was temporarily suspended.[2] Also in December 2022, but in unconnected circumstances, he was accused of offering cocaine and soliciting sexual contact with female clients.[11]}
To which CT replied:That seems like WP:SYNTH. I have no idea if seeking sex or offering drugs is criminal in this context. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that offering cocaine might criminal. WP:BLPCRIME would guide us to avoid content that suggest acts are crimes (only you did, the article doesn't). It doesn't say we should not have articles of people who maybe did a crime. His notability is mainly about citizen journalism and law society investigations. If people who are notable for multiple things also maybe do a crime, does it mean we should delete articles about them? Let's focus on the key thing here: is he notable; does he meet WP:GNG. I think: yes. And also yes.
Summary to keep:WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply because article makes no suggestion of criminality. Meets WP:GNG.
