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 is consensus that sufficient interest by sources exists for the subject, and will continue to in the foreseeable future. Arguments on the basis of BLP1E were less convincing. El_C 19:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chauvin[edit]

Derek Chauvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Relisting this at AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4. Please consider whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, keeping in mind WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. The content of the article may be accessed in the history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article is a fork of Killing of George Floyd, there is essentially no information in it which isn't in that article. The "Background" and "Involvement in the killing of George Floyd" sections, which make up most of it, were copied and pasted from Killing of George Floyd (without attribution, making this article a copyright violation). The remaining content doesn't offer anything which isn't covered in that article, aside from a few trivial details such as his marital status. Furthermore WP:CRIME says that someone known in connection with a criminal event shouldn't have a standalone article if they can be adequately covered in some other article. That is clearly the case here as all the information in this article is also in Killing of George Floyd. WP:CRIME also advises against having articles on alleged perpetrators of crimes who have not been convicted, here the subject hasn't. Hut 8.5 17:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hut 8.5 As an experienced contributor I am sure you are aware that our deletion policies call upon us to evaluate whether the underlying topic of an article is notable, based on all the available references, not judge it on its current state.
  • BLP1E does not bar covering individuals best known for a particular event in a standalone BLP article, when the individual is central to the event, and their is sufficient RS coverage of them. Chauvin is central, and extensively covered in RS.
  • Chauvin has had press coverage, prior to the killing. Several other civilians died, in multiple events where he played a role. There is press coverage of those multiple earlier events. There is press coverage of his wife, Mrs Minnesota 2018, calling him a sweet guy. Of course, prior to the video of him killing Floyd went viral, that press coverage would have fallen far short of our 2020 inclusion standards. But the earlier events completely erode assertions that Floyd was an instance of BLP1E.
  • You quote a passage from WP:CRIME, "shouldn't have a standalone article if they can be adequately covered in some other article". Well, that is just it. He can't be adequately covered in other articles. Some individuals want to have a redirect to a subsection of Killing of George Floyd#people involved. Previously it redirected to Killing of George Floyd#persons involved, and prior to that someone linked to Killing of George Floyd#police officers. Do you really think it makes sense for the link in George Floyd protests to Derek Chauvin to send readers to a subsection of Killing of George Floyd? Really?

    And what about his wife's divorce proceedings against him? This is also widely reported. Widely reported is that, even though she is out of work, she has waived her right to claim spousal support. Widely reported is that his notoriety has triggered death threats against her. Also reported that there were false reports Chauvin's squad car partner was his wife's brother. His brother-in-law is a police officer, but in the neighouring city of St. Paul

    The earlier disciplinary hearings; his wife's praise of his character; the divorce proceedings, would all be easier to cover, neutrally, and with less risk of original research, in a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are situations in which it's appropriate to delete an article on the basis of its current state. One of those is when it duplicates another article. The only reason it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A10 is the fact that the title is suitable for a redirect. Yes, I do absolutely think it's reasonable to direct the reader to Killing_of_George_Floyd#People_involved, which includes biographical material about the subject and where the rest of the article covers the other aspects of the topic. Any appropriate biographical article will have to include substantial encyclopedic material about the subject which can't be effectively covered in the article about the killing. It's not appropriate to write an article about him just so we can write about his family and his divorce, which is probably a one-liner at most. You are in any case violating BLP by making claims about these non-public figures without sources. If we want to write an article about him it will need to be an actual biography which discusses his life up to the incident and anything significant which happens to him afterwards - something along the lines of Timothy McVeigh. It doesn't look like we can do that, at least not yet. Hut 8.5 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hut. No indication, yet, that the subject warrants an stand-alone article. ——Serial ^# 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to Killing of George Floyd. Like previously stated, Chauvin is only notable for killing George Floyd, so WP:BLP1E applies.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article link currently shows a redirect. To discuss whether this is a valid subject for an article, see the expanded version here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't really have a preference whether the biography of Chauvin is on a stand-alone page, or merged into another page. However, the WP:BLP1E policy and the WP:BIO1E guideline suggest having a separate article (not a redirect), whereas WP:CRIME suggests a redirect, and WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests doing whichever is better for the reader's understanding.
  • WP:BLP1E has a three-part test: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - this is the requirement everyone focuses on, but it's only the first of three. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - definitely not Chauvin. He is not now, and is unlikely to become, a low-profile individual. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - again, definitely not Chauvin. It was a significant event, his role was substantial, and it was very well documented by multiple videos and like every press outlet in the world at this point. So, BLP1E does not apply, because #2 and #3 are not met.
  • WP:BIO1E, part of the WP:BIO subject-specific notability guideline, suggests a stand-alone page: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate..
  • The WP:CRIME guideline (also part of WP:BIO) says, for perpetrators: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. I don't think there is any concern with article size at Killing of George Floyd, so it seems WP:CRIME suggests a redirect.
  • WP:PAGEDECIDE is another applicable guideline (part of WP:N). It suggests we should do whatever serves the reader best. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're certainly not serving the reader best by presenting the same content in two different places. Passing BIO1E doesn't mean you get to have an article, it just means an article can't be deleted for failing BIO1E. Same for BLP1E. Even if Killing of George Floyd does need to be split up that doesn't mean we get to have a stand-alone article here, because there's only a paragraph of biographical content in there, and that would likely remain even after a split. A standalone article only makes sense if there's a large amount of biographical content which doesn't fit into Killing of George Floyd. Hut 8.5 19:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though we are all volunteers here, sometimes what we do is hard work. Working on covering controverial topics requires us to work harder than usual. You are absolutely correct that it is best to avoid having two or more articles duplicate the same material. However, if we keep Derek Chauvin we should make sure we watch out for duplication, and contradiction between it, Killing of George Floyd, and the other related articles, in exactly the same way we do with all the millions of other related articles on the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep No, Hut 8.5 "The Killing Of George Floyd" article only needs basic information about Derek Chauvin. The Derek Chauvin article should go into more detail about this very infamous person, such as the eighteen prior complaints against him and his marriage and subsequent divorce proceedings. Derek Chauvin is a similar figure to Gavrilo Princip (for which an article exists) in that their actions triggered some very serious events even though they were both previously obscure. WP:GNG has been met. More relevent information is sure emerge about Derek Chauvin, consequently I support Strong Keep for this artcle for reasons outlined by Geo Swan. Flaviusvulso (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Here's why: WP:A10: The new article significantly expands on the text about Chauvin in the article about the killing, including background information, information about his arrest, charges and detainment status, and his marriage. WP:BLP1E: The article does not satisfy nr. 3: The event is highly significant and Chauvin's role is substantial, as the catalyst of the whole incident and the following protests and unrest. WP:CRIME: This is one of the, if not THE most documented, talked about and influential crime in the United States since 9/11. Chauvin's involvement is well documented. We have articles about James Holmes (mass murderer) and Dylann Roof that should be deleted if we can't allow an article about Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article about George Floyd now, who is notable only for being killed by Chauvin. It makes no sense to have a separate article about Floyd, but not Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to update the article with newly-released information from Chauvin's personnel file. That is impossible with the current hard protection of the article. Please make the community able to expand the article so that people can make an opinion on an expanded article.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on George Floyd for now, but there is currently a proposed merge discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E /CRIME. To write so much about a suspected criminal (charged but not yet convicted despite the fact there's strong video evidence) is not appropriate for WP. In addition, we don't know how much of that history will be relevant, that will be a factor to be determine in the court case, and if it becomes clear that, say, this guy has a past as interesting as some serial killers (HYPOTHETICAL, I DO NOT KNOW), that might warrant a number of secondary sources that go on about his mental state to give us a reason to have a standalone article. But that won't happen until he's convicted. BLP demands we avoid this until that point. --Masem (t) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have articles about Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell. We have news about Chauvin's divorce and details about three previous incidents of police brutality and/or officer-invoved shootings that don't belong on Killing of George Floyd. The templates on Killing of George Floyd are schizophrenic. First one wants people to split the article into multiple articles because it's unwieldy, and then two more templates want the split off articles to be merged back with it. And Derek Chavin is a third. There are plenty of articles that have one or two sentences about a person that are kept. There is a rush to delete this that smells biased to me. Kire1975 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Killing of George Floyd per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. He is notable for exactly one event: the killing of George Floyd. His past misconduct, or his marriage, have exactly zero notability. Thus the best way to cover him is in the context of George Floyd. Perhaps if convicted he might warrant a standalone article, but not now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, care to explain further your assertion "His past misconduct, or his marriage, have exactly zero notability" further?

I am concerned that the delete opinnion you left here reflects an unfortunately common misinterpretation of our key policies. We are supposed to keep our personal opinions to ourselves. I think NPOV applies not only to when we add new content to articles, but to when we weigh in in AFD as to whether or not a topic measures up to our standards for notability. Chauvin's notability doesn't rely on my personal opinion he is notable. It doesn't rely on your personal opinion he is not notable. It should rely on the opinions of reliable sources, and, whether you like it or not, they have written about him, in detail. They have written about him beyond his role in Floyd's killing.

We have some special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN. Individuals who hold a Federal office, individuals who win a Nobel Prize, or a Pullitzer, ore were awarded a Victoria Cross we consider notable, even if they would not otherwise measure up to GNG. But most of our BLP articles are about individuals with multiple notability factors, where each of those notability factors, by itself, wouldn't make them notable. For most of our BLP articles we do a kind of notability arithmetic calculation, and add up the notability from all the notability factors.

I am not an RS, you are not an RS. Some tabloids, publications we would not consider RS, have reported on Chauvin. Some of the damaging mis-information comes from them. But that tabloid reporting is drowned out by solid reporting from RS that does not lapse from WP:NOTNEWS.

Is your argument equivalent to saying, "If I were chief editor of the New York Times I would prohibit my reporters from writing anything about Derek Chauvin, other than his specific role in the killing, because I personally, consider that information beneath notice"? But you aren't a newspaper's editor-in-chief, are you? And, even if that were your day job, the wikipedia is not your newspaper. So, shouldn't we ignore your gut feeling, and rely solely on the judgement of actual RS? I suggest those actual RS have established his independent notability, even if you don't like it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a Nobel prize, or a Pulitzer, expresses a life-time of achievement. For example, it's likely as not a Nobel prize winner would be notable with or without the prize. There is a life-time of work involved. Comparing Chauvin's notorious actions in one event to these persons who have received prestigious awards, for a life-time of work and achievement, is a poor analogy.

And I'm sorry but comparing Chauvin's actions to being awarded the Victoria Cross seems really demeaning. Victoria Cross "is the highest and most prestigious award of the British honours system" (first line in Wikipedia article). "It is awarded for valour 'in the presence of the enemy' to members of the British Armed Forces." Chauvin's behavior does not in any way represent valour.

A bunch of "notability factors" do not exist on Wikipedia. Generally, a person is notable based on RS covering the significant contribution that made a difference. If other RS happens to cover other biographical details that would be a plus, but that is not coverage that deems the person notable. Chauvin's marriage and past misconduct have zero impact on notability. These do not add much to the article either, maybe a couple of lines.

And, I don't know why there is an attempt to make an analogy between a Wikipedia editor and a newspaper editor-in-chief because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and NOTNEWS is a significant determining factor for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding opinions - opinions are what we are here for, to present an argument based on policies (and guidelines). It is essentially a point of view stating how a given policy applies for keeping or deleting. If it was clear cut, there would be no need for AfDs, DRVs, RFCs or the various other types of discussions that take place on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect with salt - I agree entirely with CaptainEek's sentiment, apart from the relatively minor disagreement that I don't believe a criminal act and conviction for that act are two separate events. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt? Isnt salting extraordinary? Care to offer a further explanation for this extraordinary suggestion? Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's extraordinary at all. I think it's likely someone might try to create a standalone article on Chauvin even though the article is a clear BLP1E. I guess what I was trying to say is the redirect should be protected, since I'm not suggesting a deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At this time there isn't anything about Chauvin that can't be covered by Killing of George Floyd. The marriage stuff is all WP:NOTNEWS. I think SportingFlyer's call for salt is prudent given the circumstances. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / redirect per the above arguments. StAnselm (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Redirect There is nothing of any note that can’t be said in Killing of George Floyd#People involved. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Derek Chauvin is currently a (non-working) redirect page, does that mean that the redirect is proposed for deletion? Apokrif (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Apokrif: This was weird procedurally because it was improperly speedily deleted after the AfD had started, and the DRV, which was speedily closed, said the article should be relisted at AfD, but with the redirect in place. If this is kept, the redirect will be overturned, if this is deleted, the redirect will stay. It's a bit unique. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep TheLordOfWikis (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• — Duplicate vote: TheLordOfWikis (talk • contribs) cast a vote below with a rationale.

• Delete: I also believe that the above deletion arguments hold enough weight to warrant deletion. BLP1E and CRIME apply here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current events media outlet. I feel that once the dust has settled, then perhaps we can come back to this and revisit. Waggie (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:1E says,

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, 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.

• So tell me, is does Chauvin likely meet the standard of Haward Brennan? I think clearly he does. I would further argue that The other officers in this event also meet that standard. I think the events here are extremely historically important. Casprings (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Casprings, he might one day. See how many book sources there are in the Brennan article? Guy (help!) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  JzG No books. But the massive volume of coverage from global WP:RS makes him meet the standard, IMO.Casprings (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Brennan's article is up for deletion at this moment, so we will have to see how this standard possibly shifts. However, Brennan would not be the standard here since he was a witness. If you want to compare articles, you probably need to cite examples of other killers, preferably within the same context. As for Guy's comment, I think he was referring to waiting whether coverage of Chauvin would persist after the news cycle ended (like it did with Brennan). Regards SoWhy 07:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard is the amount of coverage, as outlined WP:GNG While I don't want to WP:crystalball, come on. You really think this guy is going to drop from coverage? People will be writing about this for decades.Casprings (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Casprings, the standard is also set by WP:BLP1E. Are there sources about anything other than this one event? Guy (help!) 18:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / Redirect — Per Serial Number 54129 & CaptainEek, either option works fine for me. Celestina007 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or, I guess retain the Redirect that it already is or something?) - Err, what happened? This isn't a relisting; it's a new nomination. Relisting doesn't dismiss what participants have already said and require it to be said again. At any rate, I'll just copy/paste: This is a very straightforward WP:CRIME matter. Delete instead of merge/redirect because the main article doesn't need any of this content and Derek Chauvin is already a redirect. since we're now talking about that redirect, no reason for this last part. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Following this, pinging [non-blocked] participants of the original discussion who haven't already commented here: @Love of Corey, Letcreate123, Steve Quinn, SoWhy, IVORK, and Games of the world: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with what someone said earlier about other incidents of misconduct, etc, but want to add that his profile and central identity will grow as the trial takes place. How did we handle George Zimmerman during this same timeframe post-incident? I'm fine with doing whatever we did then, now, as the circumstances are very similar. My ultimate point is that we can have this argument, but in the coming 6 months we will learn so much more about Chauvin and the trial that this discussion will be moot because he will be notable enough to have his own page by then. Aglo123 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar, but the coverage here is greater.Casprings (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• George Zimmerman was a redirect to the shooting of Trayvon Martin article for a year and a half after the incident. It split after news coverage (for the original incident, the trial, and a separate arrest) continued for that long. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Zimmerman's notablity has a lot to do with him being acquitted. If he'd been convicted and imprisoned then we likely wouldn't have heard anything about him until he was up for parole. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems notable enough to have the article already, and will probably grow more and more relevant as the court case proceeds.TheLordOfWikis (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least Keep as redirect. This is a plausible search term and should be kept. I am neutral on whether the subject is notable for more than WP:BLP1E, at least for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I keep looking but not finding anything other than the one event. We don't have "biographies" of people who did this shitty thing once unless there is lasting coverage. I'm not convinced this will get lasting coverage, and it's way too soon to tell yet. There are a lot of notable murders, and a lot of articles on those murders where we have no separate article on the perpetrator - and we don't actually have this as a murder yet (what with innocent until proven guilty and all). Overall, WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME applies. Outraged does not amount to substantive coverage. Guy (help!) 21:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect, no article for now - I think this is a reasonable compromise until we get more information. Love of Corey (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No basis for independent article. His wife filed to dissolve the marriage. So what? What is there to cover about that, that is in any way relevant or important or notable? She is not requesting spousal maintenance. Do the reporter or our editors here have any idea about spousal maintenance in Minnesota law? Rumors that his squad car partner was his brother-in-law. A rumor makes him notable? He had complaints filed against him. On how many were action taken? The only thing this fellow is notable for is in the death of George Floyd, and his role in that is already covered in Floyd's article. Kablammo (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep No, Hut 8.5 Killing Of George Floyd article only needs basic information about Derek Chauvin. The Derek Chauvin article should go into more detail about this very infamous person, such as the eighteen prior complaints against him and his marriage and subsequent divorce proceedings. Derek Chauvin is a similar figure to Gavrilo Princip (for which an article exists) in that their actions triggered some very serious events even though they were both previously obscure. WP:GNG has been met. More relevent information is sure emerge about Derek Chauvin, consequently I support Strong Keep for this artcle for these reasons and those outlined by Geo Swan. Flaviusvulso (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• — Duplicate vote: Flaviusvulso (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
• The problem is that we can't give more than basic information about the subject now. The only thing you're suggesting we write about which isn't covered in Killing of George Floyd is his divorce proceedings, and writing about that at great length isn't an excuse for an article - at best it's a one liner. We don't keep articles on the basis that more information will emerge in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), we keep them on the basis of what's available now. Hut 8.5 06:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No Hut, there is also the eighteen prior complaints against Chauvin. Eighteen is a highly significant number which strongly suggests that Chauvin has been involved in other notable controversies, the details of which are sure to emerge in his forthcoming trial. The trial itself also needs to be factored in to the considerations which we can be sure will further contribute to the notability of the subject. There was also the incident outside Chauvin's house which required a very large police contingent to protect. Flaviusvulso (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Evidence of other unrelated controversies will not emerge in the trial; they will be excluded from evidence as prejudicial. He will be tried on the pending charges, not past history. Kablammo (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are mentioned in Killing of George Floyd or could easily be covered there if desired. It already discusses the complaints against Chauvin. We don't keep articles on the basis that there might speculatively be more material to put in them in the future, we keep them on the basis of what's available now. The trial will be discussed in Killing of George Floyd and may well get its own article. Since the other officers involved have also been charged the trial will not be focused solely on Chauvin either.

Above I mentioned Timothy McVeigh as an example of an article about someone known for a crime. That's a biography: it outlines the subject's life in detail and includes lots of stuff which wouldn't be appropriate to include in Oklahoma City bombing. What you're describing here isn't a biography, it's a random collection of events picked from Killing of George Floyd. Unless we can write an encyclopedic biography of Chauvin we shouldn't try to. It's possible that more information about Chauvin may come out in the future which enables us to write a good biography, of course, but for the article to be kept now we need to have suitable content now. Hut 8.5 07:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless we can write an encyclopedic biography of Chauvin we shouldn't try to." By that argument many articles about ancient personages should not exist for want of sufficent material -- numerous biographical stubs exist on wikipedia and rightly so. Notability determines whether or not this article should be kept -- and in this case the subject is clearly notable. Google search returns 22 million plus results! Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we shouldn't cover the topic, only that we shouldn't cover the topic in a standalone article. The topic will still be covered in Killing of George Floyd. Most biographical stubs are not comparable in that they aren't people who are only significant because of one event which we also have an article on where everything can be covered. This one is. Hut 8.5 11:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect - This article should either be kept, or redirected with history to Killing of George Floyd. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete Looking at our policies, this should either be a redirect or keep, I can't, for the life of me, figure out which is right. But deletion shouldn't be in the cards. There is no reason to think there shouldn't be a redirect at this title if we don't end up with an article here. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm going with IAR keep or, specifically the following: If the headlines of major newspapers are addressing someone by their name under the assumption that people will know who they are, we should probably we willing to host an article on them. I'm seeing this at the Washington Post "Bail set for Chauvin as Democrats unveil police reform bill" Fox has "Andrew McCarthy: George Floyd killing – Derek Chauvin's first court appearance". Things like that make me think we need an article. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and redirect: is this person really notable? Not particularly. The crime and the reprocussions are what is notable. This is an item on a BLP that shouldn't exist and I don't think SALTing should be too far from the table. I think this is a big old content fork and should be sent back to the article on the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect It is highly likely that more information about this individual will become available in the coming months， even if all the information we have at the present can be found in the killing of Floyd article. If it is made into a redirect ow, it should still be made into an article once more information is available. The person is obviously notable. Reesorville (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect This person is the very definition of a "subject notable for only one event" and should not have an article as per WP:BLP1E. The only sources we have about him are from the last couple weeks. Come back in a year or two and see if there's anything notable about him that isn't a direct result of him killing of George Floyd. Maybe there'll be more detailed sources about his entire life, maybe he'll become notable in other ways, or maybe he'll remain simply the guy in that video. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Killing of George Floyd unless that article becomes too large, per WP:CRIME. Chauvin is a low-profile individual, but this does not exempt him from being covered on Wikipedia as his crime is a well-documented historic event. Thus the substance of the content should remain on Wikipedia, but should be moved. userdude 00:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR Keep per Hobit. If we're following WP:CRIME to the letter, the content should be merged. Editorially, I'm sure most of us prefer to keep relevant content clumped together under a single article rather than making a bunch of forks. But, this isn't about what we want. Our objective should be providing an accessible encyclopedia. If a reader sees the name "Derek Chauvin" and wants to look him up, they ought to find a dedicated article about him. userdude 10:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Delete & Redirect. Very rarely do I support deleting page history, but it is worth considering in this case since it's a controversial BLP without much to add. I've not made up my mind on that front, though. The arguments presented by Hut are most convincing. This is not the same situation as with the article on George Floyd (where specific effort has been made to delve into his entire life; compare to Trayvon Martin). If Chauvin has himself a second act, we can revisit it then. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a plausible search term for the controversy. Subject is not independently notable from the killing. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there's information pertaining to Chauvin that wouldn't necessarily fit in the main article on Killing of George Floyd, such as the many different complaints against Chauvin among other things. Others in this discussion have pointed out other "killers of notability" with articles, and because of the major reaction to Floyd's death worldwide in comparison to other police slayings such as Michael Brown, where that received only major coverage in America. That's just my two cents though. --Mannytool (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think there is enough information about this person which is comming out which would not fit into the main article but has to be documented somehwere. He is becoming more and more infamous each day.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while he became notable due to the recent incident, his checkered past has been well documented. There is enough material which would not be appropriate for inclusion in the Killing of George Floyd. Chauvin has received significant coverage in independent sources and has been disciplined 18 times over the course of his career.

  Condense list for page readability.
  The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  Logan, Erin (2020-06-02). "Officer accused of killing George Floyd was disciplined for pulling woman from car during stop". LATimes. Retrieved 2017-03-12. The article notes: The records provide some insight into Chauvin’s background, starting as a military police officer with the U.S. Army from September 1996 to February 1997 and again from September 1999 to May 2000. However, the records included little detail about the at least 17 times that Chauvin was the subject of internal affairs investigations by the Minneapolis department. Chauvin, who had worked with the department since October 2001, had been disciplined for only one incident during his tenure. It occurred in August 2007 in Longfellow, a neighborhood just south of downtown Minneapolis. Chauvin was accused of pulling a woman out of her car after stopping her for going 10 miles over the speed limit. The woman filed the complaint the next day. Investigators found that Chauvin “did not have to remove complainant from car” and that he “could’ve conducted interview outside the vehicle.” Further investigation showed that Chauvin’s squad car video camera was turned off during the course of the stop. Reports indicate Chauvin was previously involved in multiple shootings. In 2006, he shot and killed a suspect who allegedly had a gun. In 2008, he shot a domestic assault suspect, and in 2011, he fired at a man seen running from another shooting. Andrew, Scott (2020-06-01). "Derek Chauvin: What we know about the former officer charged in George Floyd's death". CNN. Retrieved 2016-09-25. The article notes: Before he knelt on Floyd's neck, Chauvin was the subject of 18 prior complaints filed against him with the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs. Police confirmed the complaints were filed but didn't detail why they were filed or what they entailed. Only two of the 18 complaints were "closed with discipline," according to a MPD internal affairs public summary. In both cases, Chauvin received a letter of reprimand. According to Communities Against Police Brutality, a Minnesota nonprofit that created a database of complaints against officers in the state, Chauvin received oral reprimands for using a "demeaning tone," "derogatory language" and other language that merited discipline. "'George Floyd: What we know about the officers charged over his death". BBC News. 2020-06-08. The article notes: Mr Chauvin was the most senior officer involved in Mr Floyd's arrest, serving for almost 19 years with the Minneapolis Police Department. His record of policing included both commendations and conduct complaints. There were at least 15 conduct complaints against him, the Star Tribune reported, citing records from the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs. Most of the complaints were closed without discipline. Mr Chauvin's personal files were heavily redacted, but there are details of one complaint from 2007. The complaint concerns allegations Mr Chauvin pulled a woman from her car and frisked her after she was caught driving 10mph over the speed limit.

  These are only a few of the sources currently released document his career and controversies. This would warrant a split as his history and career would not belong on the main page of George Floyd.

  Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valoem: But would he have received said coverage if not for this single event? All those sources you mention, cover his prior conduct just because of this event. In fact, if one limits the search to news articles before 25 May, one finds three mentions of his name: A puff piece about his wife, a short press report about a shooting he was involved in and that he returned to duty after said shooting. There is no coverage of any misconduct or anything like this and, that is the important part of WP:BLP1E, there probably would not have ever been any coverage had he not killed George Floyd. Regards SoWhy 14:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  EDIT: Those are not the sources I listed, my sources are LATimes, CNN and BBC have you reviewed those sources? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SoWhy: WP:BLP1E states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The wording here can be confusing, meeting all three of those means he should not have an article.

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

  We agree he does meet this condition.

  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

  He already does not meet this condition given the significant coverage of his life. I didn't quote the full BBC article I linked (Source 3), but the source also says: "In 2006, Mr Chauvin was recommended for a medal of valour for his role in the shooting of a man who aimed a shotgun at officers." The article continues with his biographical information including his military service.

  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

  I think we can both agree he does not meet this condition. In total he only meets one of the three condition therefore per BLP1E he should have a separate article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. His background is certainly relevant to the case, and we can expand this article as we find out more. This information would fit better here than the Killing of George Floyd article, which moreover is getting very long. Davey2116 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies the criteria for inclusion under WP:BLP1E as explained by Valoem. Smartyllama (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with the above mentioned arguments for keeping the article (background, historical reasons, similar pages about individuals that have not been deleted). In addition, there is also a moral argument for keeping the article: will help reinforcing the notion of police accountability in cases of abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacefish9 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect - BLP1E, just redirect to his crime, non-notable otherwise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Per WP:ONEEVENT KidAd 21:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have voiced replies to some of the delete opinions, above, but haven't yet left my formal Keep.

  I think several of us have fully refuted claims of BLP1E.

  This is a big event, one of the top ten news stories of 2020. It is so big it can't be adequately covered in a single article. It is currently covered by a constellation of articles, including George Floyd protests.

  I think Police use of chokeholds, or similar, should link to Derek Chauvin. I started to work on some notes on Knee-on-neck chokehold. Floyd's death is not the first time this controversial technique has been a focus of public scrutiny. Now I think it would be better to have an article on all Police use of all chokeholds. Wherever police chokeholds are discussed Derek Chauvin should be linked. He is always going to be among the most famous police officers to kill a citizen with a chokehold.

  Readers, who came to the wikipedia to read about the Police use of chokeholds, who then click on a link to Derek Chauvin, are going to want to go to an article on Derek Chauvin. Sending them to Killing of George Floyd#Persons involved is a disservice to those readers.

  Should Police training link to Derek Chauvin? I think so. The following article questions why Chauvin, an officer with multiple disciplinary infractions, could have been given the authority serve as a "training officer". Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Police reforms long overdue". Rockford Register Star. 2020-06-10. Retrieved 2020-06-10. Make field training officer positions prestigious, well-paid assignments that only the highest performers qualify for. It's worth noting that Chauvin was assigned to an FTO position despite having 18 previous complaints filed against him. The day of Floyd's death, he had two rookies shadowing him. If you want better cops, find better teachers.
  • James Santiago Grisolia, MD (2020-06-11). "What Police Chokeholds Can Do to the Brain — George Floyd's death prompts new look at often overused police tactic". Chokeholds as used in law enforcement typically involve some combination of arms or batons putting pressure on the subject's neck and should be distinguished from the knee-on-neck that Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin applied to Floyd, a more aggressive and rarely sanctioned technique.

  • Strong keep per Geo_Swan, Kebabpizza, Kire1975, Casprings, Flaviusvulso, Davey2116. There is voluminous WP:RS on Chauvin per Google with 24 million hits on his name--clearly enough for a separate article. Although, it is certainly true that he is notable for his association with a single event, the voluminous WP:RS about his role in that event, his past history that is being reviewed with a fine tooth comb, make a content fork the only appropriate way to avoid having the event article explode beyond all reasonable proportions. WP:BIO1E says:

  If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the extensive coverage of previous use of force incidents beyond this one event/crime, and also the significant coverage of his marriage to a local celebrity and their divorce proceedings, this article clearly meets both WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E is therefore an unambiguous keep. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go with keep, because: (1) It's established custom and practice that when someone commits a killing that's very notorious, BLP1E goes out of the window (Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, etc.); (2) BLP1E exists to protect people, and Chauvin has through his actions forfeited all imaginable right to our protection; and (3) There's clear evidence that our readers want to read about him on Wikipedia, and no reason to deny them.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, no, a thousand times no. Nobody forfeits their right to our protection. Chauvin is still a person. StAnselm (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure they do. In BLP1E, our "protection" reduces to "we won't link your name to your alleged crimes or involvement in bad things". Chauvin absolutely has forfeited that protection, and I'm not dehumanizing him by saying so.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're forgetting that Wikipedia policy dictates that we must presume him to be not guilty. StAnselm (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I carefully said "killing" and not "murder". Whether Chauvin murdered Flynn is for a jury to decide. But no credible source even attempts to pretend that Chauvin didn't kill him.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 June 2020 (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.