Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fajitagate

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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fajitagate[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be one of many minor scandals that have occurred in police departments, most of which have no lasting impact at all and don't really belong here. Has a few references, but all are from the local paper and the things that would push this to significance (the scandal and the criminal trial) are completely unreferenced. Appears to lack significant coverage from something that isn't the San Francisco Chronicle Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is determined that the content is significant enough to be placed elsewhere, I would suggest in the article on the department (if they have a scandals section) and in the article on the police chief Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I was the major author of the article). It was regionally notable, and nationally to the extent that the sitting police chief of a major US city and other senior leadership were charged with criminal coverup activity (subsequently dismissed, but the charges were filed...). I leave it to the wisdom of the masses on whether that rises to the level of retention here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addl info (not currently referenced in article):

Jeff Tobin in the New Yorker contemporaneously [1]
Legal cases that reached the federal appeals level [2] [3]
LA Times coverage of the Fagan Jr criminal trial results [4]
Contemporaneous CNN coverage (Anderson Cooper / Jeff Tobin) [5]

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the LA Times citation could be worked into the criminal trial without much trouble Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication WP:EVENT is met, a basic search indicates it was limited in size, time, and region. tedder (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of lasting significance, as would be represented by continued coverage in sources a long time after the fact. --Jayron32 04:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wonder if people proposing or voting for deletion lived in California at the time. This was in the news for some time, and was a clearly notable event.Greg Bard (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not particularly relevant whether we lived in California or not...but for the record, I'm from southern California. And in any case, the article when nominated didn't really reflect it being in the news (apart from the local paper) for some time Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my frustration with deletionism (not you personally). Certainly it doesn't matter where you live insofar as these deletion discussions are concerned. However, I find that there is a lot of deletionism from people who don't necessarily have any idea of whether or not something is notable based on some experience or education in that particular subject area, but rather seem to rely solely on the info in the stub article itself. Greg Bard (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP -- The initial incident in itself was minor, but surrounding circumstances and coverups resulted in a major shakeup in the San Francisco PD, and cut short a number of previously-promising careers, and was a factor in the passing of a ballot measure designed to reform department governance (see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/31/BAGIOC13FU1.DTL ). It also received national media coverage at the time, as documented above... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:EVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me this event warranted enough attention and coverage on its effects. —Ed!^(talk) 16:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge, & Redirect; it is my opinion that although the subject meets WP:GNG it does not meet WP:EFFECT. Therefore the content should be summarized to what can be directly referenced from the reliable sources, the event be listed at List of events in the history of the San Francisco Police Department, and a redirect left in the present article space to the list article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This matter has had enduring effects, per WP:EFFECT, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.". Here's a quote from the CNN transcript source I posted in my !vote below:

"ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Fajita gate. A fight over a fajita. Earlier I said burrito. I misspoke. It was a fajita. Wounded up shaking the entire structure of San Francisco's city government. We're not kidding."

This lead to a federal civil lawsuit against the San Francisco Police Department, which was ultimately dismissed in appeal. From "Court refuses to revive Fajitagate lawsuit against S.F.":

"But the appeals court said the plaintiffs had failed to show that such a practice - if it existed - led to the off-duty incident. The 3-0 ruling upheld U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's 2006 decision to dismiss the suit without a trial. Deputy City Attorney Sean Connolly said the ruling "should finally signal a much-needed end to this sensationalized chapter in Police Department history.""

The incident led to a series of highly-publicized lawsuits (criminal and civil), and then a subsequent civil lawsuit appeal. These types of lawsuits can set and/or contribute to legal precedent for future cases. This is enough to pass WP:EFFECT.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of mentions in news. Seems like a notable incident.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. The incident was a big shake-up in the SFPD. It received some national coverage and mention of it in books suggests lasting interest or significance beyond the immediate news cycle. Still, along the lines of what RightCowLeftCoast has mentioned, I would be OK with a merge and redirect to San Francisco Police Department. Location (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, has received national coverage in reliable sources, including Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker & CNN. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 3 January 2012 (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.