Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Akai Gurley

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 no consensus. With a majority believing that this is a notable enough even to warrant an article. Sandstein 10:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Akai Gurley

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

Fails WP:notability, just like Netanel Aremi. Keiiri (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article regarding an event covered by international media. Artw (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any media covering it right now at all, and in any case, WP:NOTNEWS. A non-notable event that's unlikely to have any lasting significant impact. Keiiri (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick pass through, tidied some things up, expanded a little, added some sources and put the existing sources into a more useful format. Things should be a little clearer now and the diverse and continuing coverage more evident. Artw (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep in mind that a blog is not a reliable news source, such the specific blog.villagevoice tabloid. Keiiri (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not aware of a decision that The Village Voice is unacceptable from a WP:RS point of view. Regardless, there are many other sources. Artw (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not the specific blog part of it, no. I don't consider any blogs, especially of a tabloid, to be RS. Keiiri (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The Village Voice is printed in 11" x 17", which is the 'Tabloid (newspaper format), but it is not Tabloid journalism -- an elementary and important distinction. The Village voice has received three Pulitzer Prices and published many highly-regarded writers including Henry Miller, E.E. Cummings, and Allen Ginsberg. It is not, e.g., The National Enquirer. In addition to its weekly print edition it publishes a news blog -- not to be confused with some random individual's blog that is not affiliated with a newspaper. Benefac (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For what it's worth, we have a policy on this: WP:NEWSBLOG, which points out that such blogs might not be subject to the same fact-checking procedures as other work published by the same organisation, but suggests they're likely to be reliable if they are. In this case it's worth adding to the honours mentioned by User:Benefac that the Village Voice's website "has twice been recognized as one of the nation's premier online sites for journalistic quality and local content. The site is a past winner of both the National Press Foundation's Online Journalism Award and the Editor and Publisher Eppy Award for Best Overall U.S. Weekly Newspaper Online." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Arms & Hearts, although it still doesn't really establish its notability. However, you are the only person on the keep that I honestly agree with for far, so thanks. Keiiri (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per ArtW. Also WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence has been provided to justify keeping this article. It simply does not meet the WP:EVENT notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether it was "covered by the international media", because we are not a newspaper. Regardless, as my colleague said above, I do not see any evidence of this "coverage". This event has had no continued coverage, no lasting impact, no coverage in a diverse variety of sources outside the occasional wire piece, and only affects a small area. It simply doesn't meet any of the criteria above. I like that we have people saying "also WP:GNG". It is quite clear they've not read the criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 03:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent reference in the article appears to be from the 10th of December, well after the shooting, and concerns an ongoing investigation.Looking at the last few days I see continued mentions in articles regarding the recent spare of police shootings [1] [2] as well as the Village Voice including it in their summary of the year in NYPD PR disasters.[3] There's also a renewed focus on the housing and maintenance issues which led to Akai's death.[4][5][6]. I'm not seeing this going away anytime soon. Artw (talk) 1a6:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete or redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. This tragedy may have been covered in multiple media, but without a reason for notability on its own, it won't hold up and it may easily be redirected to New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct, being one of dozens of such examples. Epicgenius (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the NYPD is racking up quite the body count does not diminish the notability of any particular incident, and the press has covered this one.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the other Keep rationales plus the fact that 1) Akai's family is calling for a rally on Saturday defying the mayor's call for a suspension of demonstrations, so the reaction to the killing is a testing of the 1st amendment in a city with a new liberal mayor 2) The decision of the grand jury on this case will define the first part of the career of newly-elected Brooklyn district attorney, Kenneth Thompson.--Aichik (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Also appeared in the intro question in this forum between contemporary philosophers in the New York Times. --Aichik (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That last source was a blog, and none of the sources indicate notability, and again WP:NOTNEWS. Keiiri (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 14:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of the article is notable, worthy of notice; significant and interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in General Notability WP:GNG and Events WP:EVENTS. It has received extensive and ongoing coverage in highly reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There are many informed avenues for developing this article. This event has demonstrated lasting effect, has already had widespread national impact and has been very widely covered in diverse sources (WP:DIVERSE), including 29,000 Google News hits (and 500,000 general Google hits). It has frequently been re-analyzed afterwards. It has already shown WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE / WP:PERSISTENCE. The event shows lasting effects, geographical scope, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. Maintaining a general article on 2014 police-violence protests and separate articles on notable instances of police violence is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This event is notable by itself. It has created lasting effects. A Google News search of <"Akai Gurley"> sorted by Date reveals articles in reliable sources in almost every day since the shooting. It is false and preposterous to suggest that no media is covering it. (Given the extensive press coverage of this case, from the day it took place until now, to suggest that it be deleted raises questions of WP:BIAS.) The consensus to keep seems strong. It would not be appropriate nor encylopedic to try and combine this and similar cases into just one article. Such an article would be too long and clunky. Not every case needs a separate article, but the most significant ones do, and this event qualifies. The separate topics already have been expanded into longer standalone articles. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles. The standalone articles are not duplicates, they do not overlap in enough ways to warrant merging, they each have significant independent text, and they do not need to be presented together to have sufficient context (as with characters from a novel, per WP:MERGE). Benefac (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to back up your statement instead of copy and pasting. A quick look at major sites like Yahoo and CNN show no ongoing coverage. Keiiri (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling-down on your falsehood does not make it any truer. If you want to make claims like there is no "media covering [this] right now at all" (as you did on Dec 18), when others have provided clear links to reliable sources that run counter to your assertion, then it is your obligation to prove your (false) claim. Likewise, if you want to claim that there is "no ongoing coverage" on "major sites" as you did on Dec 28, then it is your obligation to prove it. But you can't -- because it is not true. (WP:Weasel-words like "I don't see," "right now," "like Yahoo and CNN," or "a quick look" do not remove this burden of proof from you.) A very simple google search reveals many such articles; a few are listed below. Google ist dein Freund. I will not do research like this for you again. Your lack of WP:GOODFAITH as an editor in RfD and/or your inability to conduct the most basic internet research is noted.

"Akai Gurley Protest Draws Hundreds In Brooklyn," by Benjamin Hart, Huffington Post, Posted: 12/27/2014 5:24 pm EST Updated: 5 hours ago, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/27/akai-gurley-protests_n_6385234.html

"Protesters March Demanding Justice In Officer Shooting That Killed Akai Gurley," CBS News, December 27, 2014 9:50 PM, http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/27/protesters-march-demanding-justice-in-officer-shooting-that-killed-akai-gurley/

"Akai Gurley’s family leads march in protest of the Brooklyn man’s NYPD shooting death," Posted 5:00 PM, December 27, 2014, by Andrea Cavallier and Associated Press, Updated at 11:29pm, December 27, 2014, http://pix11.com/2014/12/27/akai-gurleys-family-leads-march-in-protest-of-the-brooklyn-mans-nypd-shooting-death/

"Hundreds of protesters march in Brooklyn demanding justice for Akai Gurley," BY Jan Ransom, Rich Schapiro, New York Daily News, Published: Saturday, December 27, 2014, 9:25 PM, Updated: Saturday, December 27, 2014, 9:30 PM, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/hundreds-march-brooklyn-demanding-justice-akai-gurley-article-1.2058434

"Protesters stage anti-cop rally at Akai Gurley slay site," New York Post, By Ben Feuerherd, Beckie Strum, Natasha Velez and Susan Edelman, December 28, 2014 | 4:13am http://nypost.com/2014/12/28/protesters-stage-anti-cop-rally-at-akai-gurley-slay-site/

This extends to international coverage as well, e.g.:

"A Woman Demanding Justice for Akai Gurley," Economic Times of India, December 28, 2014, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshows/day-in-pics/december-28-2014/a-woman-demanding-justice-for-akai-gurley/slideshow/45664440.cms

"‘Wake Up!’ 1000s take to streets across US protesting police brutality," December 28, 2014 10:27, Russia Today, http://rt.com/usa/218159-usa-anti-police-demonstration/

Etc. That's just for Dec 27-28. Benefac (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Arms & Hearts already pointed out the recent protest. There was nothing from Dec 17-26 when this was opened, and the mostly-local coverage still doesn't indicate notability. Keiiri (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the sources, you should probably go ahead and incorporate the best of them into the article.

Keiiri - you seem to be actively upset the article is being improved, that's a remarkably poor attitude. I would suggest either assisting or stepping away - theres certainly no reason for you to jump on everyone who is helping out. Artw (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not jumping on anyone, and Benefec's personal attacks isn't helping his case. And Benefac hasn't done anything except being canvassed. You also really need to take a chill pill, I'm not the one getting all worked up for no reason. Keiiri (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. I simply reported the truth. Once again, this statement is false: "There was nothing from Dec 17-26 when this [AfD] was opened." This is not true. I write this not as an attack, but as a statement of fact, easily verified through basic google searches. Likewise, to refer to "the mostly-local coverage" is misleading, as indicated by the national and international WP:Reliable sources referenced above. Artw is doing a fine job of editing this article; please feel free to include any sources referenced here, thanks. Benefac (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about you try giving an example of what happened on Dec 17-26 when this was opened? Nothing even happened for weeks before that. Your first comment above was indeed nothing but personal attacks, and I request that you tone it down a bit. And the local New York, Brooklynn coverage is indeed mostly local-coverage. It still doesn't indicate notability. And again, WP:NOTNEWS. Would this "world-changing" event have any WP:LASTING historical or encyclopedic interest in 100 years? No. It's just getting news coverage because of so many of the cop-shoots-black-man stories recently. How about all the other people shot by cops also? Keiiri (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, I will not again do basic google research for you. I have not engaged in personal attacks, I have stated facts. If you would like tips on basic google search techniques I am happy to help you. E.g., in a browser search box type the name in quotation marks, "Akai Gurley." Click on "News" to select news sources. (You'll note there are now 45,000 articles about Akai Gurley.) Click on Search Tools, and then click again in the drop-down menu where it says Sorted By Relevance, and change this to Sorted by Date. Now scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the Next button to advance in reverse chronology. Continue until the dates you seek appear. Now choose the most reliable of these sources. Please let me know if you have questions on this. Yes there is local NYC coverage, not surprisingly so, and yes there is also broader regional, national, and international coverage of this event. In any case, this event has now achieved widespread news coverage, public discussion, and has influenced other events.

Wikipedia is not a compendium of 'world-changing' events, this is not a criteria for inclusion of articles in Wikipedia. Yes, it seems likely there will be WP:Lasting interest in this article. (As there is interest in articles on many individual cases.) This police killing of this US citizen who simply walked up the stairs to his apartment, has received widespread national news coverage. This is not a routine local event. Many major newspapers have published articles including this incident in the context of national debates about racial profiling and police shootings of unarmed young African-American males. Coverage has been widespread and ongoing. These incidents will clearly be the subject of long-term historical analysis, and one of Wikipedia's functions is to document this type of thing, and to collect and catalogue the full range of reliable sources covering the incident, for the benefit of future researchers. This is notable. You seem bothered by or resentful of news coverage about American police shooting black men, and you seem to want articles on people of other races who are shot by cops. Perhaps you should back away from articles about the former, and write articles on the latter. Benefac (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that you still can't even say what happened on Dec 10-26. Other than the recent local protest, it still doesn't indicate notability. The local New York, Brooklynn coverage is indeed mostly local-coverage. There's nothing on the major sites like Yahoo, BBC, CNN, or Reuters, and you never even hear of this case. Keiiri (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for any editor to disprove your false claims, nor to conduct this basic research for you, this would be a WP:Waste of time. There are now 1.2 million google hits for <akai gurley>, including 45,000 hits in Google's News section. You are welcome to contribute to the article by choosing reliable sources on certain dates if you think this is important. I provided detailed steps for you to find these, in case you were having difficulty. Responding to the points above, including to the specific citations from widespread reliable sources, might be more productive than simply repeating the same denials. Yes, tautologically the "local New York, Brooklynn [sic] coverage is indeed local." The national coverage about this event is national. And the international coverage about this event is international. There is coverage about the homicide of Akai Gurley and its aftermath on most major sites, including BBC[7], CNN[8], and Reuters[9]; you are wrong about this. On Yahoo[10], too (its reliability varies). More generally, I don't think you're suggesting that Wikipedia can only include articles with citations on dates you personally specify and from news sources you specify -- if so, you might want to start your own wiki. (The Wikipedia software is open-source.) My experience is that most editors who study these general topic areas (e.g., Police brutality in the United States, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Civil and political rights, New York City Police Department, New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct, Racism, Racism in the United States, Racial profiling, Race and crime in the United States, African-American history, etc.) have heard of this case. Benefac (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still can't say what happened from Dec 10-26. If there is really significant coverage everyday like you claim, then you should have no trouble finding recent sources from BBC, CNN, or Reuters, not old ones. That 22 second video about a local protest doesn't indicate notability. Nothing happened from from Dec 29 to now either, so your claim about it lasting and being frequently re-analyzed are false. The number of hits are also small compared to other events like the shooting of Antonio Martin. Your personal attacks are also not helping you either. Keiiri (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So many white-cop-shoots-black-man stories in the news lately that they are too many to count. With this article, does this mean there has to be an article about EVERY similar incident that occurs, post-Michael Brown shooting in the least? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: no. At least 1,084 people have been killed by U.S. police since January 1, 2014. Black men (on average) are killed by police about 20 times as often as white men.[11] There may not need to be an article about every such killing. However, those that become a significant focal point, as judged in part by extensive news coverage and by their impact in shaping events, do deserve articles. The Shooting of Akai Gurley is one such notable event. Benefac (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not this meets WP:EVENT is, as always, something of a judgement call, but I think the recent demonstration, which received significant coverage more than a month after Gurley's death, is a good sign that this event has the lasting effects and persistence we require. Given that police killings of black men in the U.S. are something the media are taking an interest in, I think this is likely to continue to receive coverage. I'd certainly rather we keep an article that meets WP:GNG but might take a while to conclusively satisfy EVENT than delete it only to later find it needs to be resurrected. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Of course this article should be kept, for all the policy reasons outlined above, and more. The suggestion that this is only local news flies in the face of ongoing articles about this event across the USA and around the world, including in major periodicals in nearly every major language worldwide.[12][13][14][15][16][17] Deutschsprachige Zeitungen waren unzureichend zu diesem Thema, vielleicht? Eugene Banks (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Those sources are also old, and do not demonstrate a lasting effect. Keiiri (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources are sufficient to demonstrate the lasting notability of this incident. Robofish (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Benefac was the one who voted "keep" multiple times every time he commented here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of John Crawford III before another user striked out his multiple votes. 172.56.17.46 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and was frankly less disruptive than some allegedly more experienced editors on that page. Do you have a point relating to this article or this AFD discussion, IP User? Artw (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, IP User 172.56.17.46, and thanks for your second Wikipedia edit. Yes, readers may read all about my mistake (in a separate WP article) where I initially thought one should label all one's comments, here [18]. What's your point? Please note that AfD discussions are not a 'vote'. Benefac (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2015 (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.