Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Patrick Harman

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Patrick Harmon[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Does not appear to be any significant coverage of this. Further, his name was Patrick Harmon not Harman. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of article meets WP:GNG: it has been covered in full-length pieces at The Guardian, Newsweek, The Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV, the Daily Mirror, and Deseret News (all cited in the article), and perhaps elsewhere. Article is a stub, so WP:DONOTDEMOLISH applies. The misspelling of Harmon's name has already been corrected. As for the allegation of WP:NOTNEWS, none of that policy's four criteria disqualify the article:

Original reporting. Does not apply, because the article is not written as a primary source. Rather, the article cites other sources for each claim made, per WP:VERIFIABILITY.
News reports. Does not apply, because article is not about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nor is the article "written in news style".
Who's who. Article is exactly in keeping with the stipulation here that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event".
A diary. Clearly not applicable to the article.

Ergo, keep. Please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: What makes this more notable than any other police shooting? I am not seeing anything. It is only notable in the context of police shootings- nothing makes this different. Nothing calls him by name, it's just "cop shoots fleeing black", "shots fired in downtown slc" , protestors demand to see footage, footage shows..kills black man. None of that is anything more than routine news coverage. Unless you support creating an article for every person ever killed by the police, which might be a substantial task. And it was only fixed because I pointed it out, so don't say 'already.' ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. @El cid, el campeador: "What makes this more notable than any other police shooting?" Sorry, but this question doesn't make sense to me. I don't think anyone is claiming that this is the most notable police shooting the world has ever seen, just that it meets WP:GNG and doesn't breach WP:NOTNEWS. About, "it's just 'cop shoots fleeing black'". Ugh, how can you say "just" in a sentence like that? This makes me really sad :( Finally, about the spelling, I was only pointing out that it was already fixed by the time I replied here on the AfD thread. Geez. zazpot (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - seems to have substantial coverage and reliable sources. Would recommend re-evaluating (in a year?) if coverage completely falls off, but there’s enough to justify keeping it for now. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to look at this, so I won't vote, but I should ask whether a reasonable merge target is available. If not, how do you propose Wikipedia maintain a proper description of this social issue? Wnt (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, if I knew of a reasonable merge target, I would not oppose merging, but I don't know of one at the moment. I propose Wikipedia simply applies WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as normal. After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTFINISHED. Zazpot (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received substantial international coverage such as in the U.K with The Guardian, Mirror, and all other UK national newspapers as well as BBC, Channel 4 and others. If it was just another shooting it would not have received substantial coverage outside of the U.S. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as that policy is for trivial events which this is not Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have enough WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to pass the WP:GNG -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability has been established by news coverage. Maurreen (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has received on-going coverage including in international media; a clearly controversial police shooting, which likely meets WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Coverage is continuing and diverse, with multiple international sources. Meets GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2017 (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.