Talk:Murder of Benjamin Marconi

Name of suspect

Is there a specific reason why the name of the suspect isn't in this article? Chief Red Eagle (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind; I see that it's in the article now. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. The discussion appears to have stalled for over a month and while the trend overall is leaning towards opposing the merge there are valid points on the merge side. That being said as there has been no forward progress I'm closing the request as no consensus. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Merge proposal

Proposing that James Oakley (County administrator) be merged here, because this appears to be the sole incident he is notable for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. Articles on county judges are rare, and this has undertones of WP:BLP1E. Parsley Man (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• My more recent searches + sources added by article creator establish that Oakley has had a political career in Texas that had brought him regional (Texas) notability even before this incident. If no one objects, I will close this merge discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Thank you, E.M.Gregory, I am pleased you have reconsidered in light of my more-recent expansions. I think the two articles should remain separate. EdChem (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:EdChem, just fyi, when creating an article and, especially, when attempting to convince fellow editors that an subject is sufficiently notable to support an article, it is more persuasive to have fewer sources but strong ones. What you need to show with this WP:NPOL, is that facts about his life and career are sourced to WP:RS, and that he has had significant attention in regional (not merely in local) publications. At present, the article is overstuffed, both creating the impression that a plethora of trivial sources are being used because really strong ones (in-depth coverage of career and profiles,) don't exist, and discouraging editors from weighing in at all. Who wants to spend time scanning this many articles? Best practice is to reduce the oversourcing. You could also bring a couple of the most persuasive articles (like a profile,) here. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, thanks for your comments. I would certainly not describe the pathway for the Oakley article as ideal. EdChem (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge to James Oakley (County administrator) - (not visa versa), per WP:NOTNEWS. LavaBaron (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I highly disagree. An AfD discussion judged that article to be notable. Parsley Man (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, I would not worry about LavaBaron's response. First, I doubt anyone will agree that an article on the shooting murder of a police officer be folded into a BLP of someone who made a controversial comment. Second, if they did, I am sure the BLP policy would prevent such an absurd outcome. Third, LB likely came here because of me, he has been commenting on me a lot in the DYK context recently. Fourth, given the proposer of the merge has already struck the proposal and (I think) has concluded both articles belong on wiki, and separate, I hope the articles will not be merged or further moved. The path we've taken to get here has not been ideal, partly due to me, I admit, but we seem to have ended up with some sort of consensus nonetheless. EdChem (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, I wouldn't worry about EdChem's comment, Parsley. "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Parsley - that's the reason I'd support a merge to that article. Given the AfD judged it notable we shouldn't "shadow delete" it by merging it into this article. I'm not entirely passionate about the subject either way, but it almost strikes me that the merge proposal might have been inadvertently reversed. Dozens of police are shot to death each year in the U.S. [1], the thing that seems to make this notable is the County Judge's comment. "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the unusual nature of the Shooting of Benjamin Marconi had attracted significant national attention well before this politician weighed in with his racist comment. And continues to attract national attention [2] totally separate from Oakley's remark. I firmly oppose deletion by merger of the article on the shooting. Am open to reconsidering James Oakley (politician)'s notability. User:EdChem, can you point us to a handful of persuasive sources in that overstuffed parade of footnotes?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Some sources, leaving out all the local coverage. His Facebook comment: New York Post, Daily Mail, Austin American-Statesman, Texas Monthly discusses Oakley under "Judges Gone Wild", Huffington Post, and more

Position on Texas Commission on Law Enforcement confirmed by the Commission

Oakley solving prison problem: Houston Chronicle

PEC considering dismissal from board of directors: San Antonio Express-News (December 9), San Antonio Express-News (November 30) KVUE, Hays Free Press

Does this cover what you are looking for? EdChem (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, User:EdChem. Polk County, Texas (pop. ~45,000) is smaller than a city where a mayor would be automatically notable, but mayors of cities this size can be notable, the argument here would be that coverage of his activities before this incident in regional papers combines with coverage of this incident to confer notability. I see the argument, but it still feels a little BLP1e-ish, and, in this case, the opportunity to merge him into the incident is supported by the fact that his position is now under review as a consequence of those remarks. I still/again support merging.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Leave aside that he is in Burney County (as it is much the same size), and consider that I have built an 82-reference article covering his life, that his comment on Facebook is now possibly going to lose him the elected directorship of the largest member-owned electricity utility in the United States, that he has been appointed to state-wide positions by two Governors, that he serves on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization board with regional responsibilities, and that his solution of the Burnet Jail problem was praised in the Houston Chronicle. Yes, there would be no article without the Facebook comment, but looking at WP:BLP1E which you are citing, it says we avoid an article if all three of the following are met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. – Clearly does not apply here, I have RS coverage preceding the Facebook post.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. – Clearly does not apply, political figures seek coverage and are not low-profile individuals.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. – His role in the post-shooting period is minor, but was has developed from it is entirely focused on him, and goes (so far) only to the PEC directorship and not to his position as County Judge, or on TCOLE (which provides a Bio) or on CAMPO, or on the HUD CDBGs.

To invoke BLP1E, you need all three of these criteria and as he is not low-profile, BLP1E cannot apply. If you want to argue for WP:BIO1E, then note that what I have written is certainly not a pseudo-biography as it is comprehensive and arguing he is only notable for the comment and so coverage belongs in this shooting article ignores his other roles and the fact that the PEC events are really highly tangential to the shooting article. Folding him back into the shooting article also portrays him as only worth mention in the context of a shooting murder of a police officer, and that is a BLP issue. EdChem (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - obviously both articles should remain.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two highly distinguishable topics. The Oakley page might need some content trimming, but the pages are fine as they separately are. Politics and shootings are becoming highly sensitive topics lately. How many more shall I face, even when WP:CRYSTAL is discouraged? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.