Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Antonio Martin

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Antonio Martin

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

WP:NOTNEWS -- Calidum 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This article is receiving a myriad of media attention and this attention will only increase. Protests are ongoing relating to this incident. The same logic that applies to articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown should apply here. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (but not speedy) keep: The incident (and its aftermath and implications) have been covered extensively in national WP:RS. Agree with ceradon in all but !vote degree and add that the incident passes WP:GNG now and the ongoing coverage is a bonus. Deadbeef 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:EVENT, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, &c. It's one death, in a shoplifting incident. How the heck can that have WP:LASTING historical and encyclopaedic interest? Would someone in 100 years care about this "world-changing" event? No. RGloucester — ☎ 07:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill police shooting of an armed gunman aiming at a police officer, which is getting some media attention because, coincidentally, it happened just two miles from the Michael Brown shooting and subsequent riots and protests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328, it is getting media attention because it happened close to the site of the Michael Brown shooting just like the Vonderrit Myers shooting. - SantiLak (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though a bit of a cautious one as this happened days ago and it's impossible to tell if it will continue to get the same level of coverage. I'm also a bit suspicious that this, shooting of John Crawford III and similar articles all got instantaneous WP:NOTNEWS nominations and yet 2014 NYPD officer killings did not. What's that about? Artw (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it took 11 hours to get our first subtle claim of racism. -- Calidum 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nethertheless I have not seen WP:NOTNEWS argued so feircely for events of such consequence and such coverage as I have over the last few weeks and they have all been shootings by police. Normally it is used for keeping trivial occurrences out, here it seems like something else. Artw (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - right now this passes WP:GNG. Only someone with a magic ball can make judgement about the future level of coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - *whips out crystal ball* It is almost guaranteed that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and others will cover it if/when the officer goes public and there is an indictment trial. I don't know why there is already talk about enduring notability. Let it play out. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2014 (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]
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 11:27, 29 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 <"Antonio Martin"> 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). 208.54.83.228 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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.