Talk:Killing of Sammy Yatim
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Naturally
A minor police incident with zero historical or socio-cultural impact gets a Wikipedia article. Right up there with video games, cartoon characters, and sitcoms that ran for only one season in the late 90s. Bang up job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.152.200 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Did you ignore the Aftermath section or just not comprehend it? Spawned protests, inspired police reviews, led to a murder charge. Google News is leading with this story today, over three weeks later. It's definitely not Hitz. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, none of that makes this worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. A good rule of thumb for determining whether or not something belongs in an encyclopedia is to ask yourself if one hundred years from now people will still care (and the honest answer to that in this case is, of course, no). The fact that it receives media attention doesn't show that it has any significant impact; I mean, the sorts of things that belong in encyclopedias are things like major wars, important national political leaders, scientific figures, and the like. Not a single murder. This event, while tragic, doesn't have the kind of significance that warrants an encyclopedia article. It's not surprising that it's included, though, since Wikipedia has a very distorted view of significance, and tends to be little more than a mass collection of mostly useless information, with very little effort made to actually assess the importance of the information processed, only to categorize it before moving on to the next bit. It's like you all have Asperger's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.152.200 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet notability requirements, rather than anonymously disapproving. Also, feel free to provide an informative deletion reason. The scope of reporting of the event is reason enough to warrant the existence of the article. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 17:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that now that the upshot is criminal charges, there can no longer be any question of this article's notability. I would say that the original (anonymous) poster's motivations probably have more to do with the prejudice that has been dirtying Canada over the last few years of right-wing rule than with any actual concern about notability. Anyway, there will now be a trial, and if Forcillo is convicted, it will be the first time that a Toronto police officer has been convicted of second-degree murder. Kelisi (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's a pretty surprising (and signficant) fact. Should be noted in the article, if verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that now that the upshot is criminal charges, there can no longer be any question of this article's notability. I would say that the original (anonymous) poster's motivations probably have more to do with the prejudice that has been dirtying Canada over the last few years of right-wing rule than with any actual concern about notability. Anyway, there will now be a trial, and if Forcillo is convicted, it will be the first time that a Toronto police officer has been convicted of second-degree murder. Kelisi (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet notability requirements, rather than anonymously disapproving. Also, feel free to provide an informative deletion reason. The scope of reporting of the event is reason enough to warrant the existence of the article. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 17:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, none of that makes this worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. A good rule of thumb for determining whether or not something belongs in an encyclopedia is to ask yourself if one hundred years from now people will still care (and the honest answer to that in this case is, of course, no). The fact that it receives media attention doesn't show that it has any significant impact; I mean, the sorts of things that belong in encyclopedias are things like major wars, important national political leaders, scientific figures, and the like. Not a single murder. This event, while tragic, doesn't have the kind of significance that warrants an encyclopedia article. It's not surprising that it's included, though, since Wikipedia has a very distorted view of significance, and tends to be little more than a mass collection of mostly useless information, with very little effort made to actually assess the importance of the information processed, only to categorize it before moving on to the next bit. It's like you all have Asperger's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.152.200 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Racklever (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sammy Yatim → Death of Sammy Yatim – Sammy Yatim is not notable, his death is. Racklever (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support there's also plenty of precedent. Most recently, I see that Trayvon Martin is a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.