Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napier shootings

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. ✗plicit 23:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Napier shootings[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This event does not appear to have any lasting significance. A person who was going to be searched by police for drugs, opened fire and killed a policeman. After a siege, he killed himself. There was a coronial inquest, as is standard but a search didn't reveal any evidence of attempts to change laws, or any political impact, or community protests. There is basically no coverage more than a year after the killing apart from routine reporting on the coronial inquest. While it was in the news in the immediate aftermath of the event, it ended up having no impact and WP:NOTNEWS Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 01:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The killing of a police officer is a very rare event in New Zealand, with only one other officer killed since this (not counting one killed in an earthquake). See List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty. A TV movie was made about the event in 2012 (see the external links section of the article), and Radio New Zealand made a documentary in 2019.-gadfium 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a movie and a documentary about the event, and one person involved was made New Zealander of the year. To claim no "lasting significance" thus appears wrong. Schwede 66 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Into List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is currently on the main page, this satisfies Criterion #6 for a Speedy Keep. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, this is currently on the main page. ansh.666 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC) struck and reopened since it's rotated off the MP again, pinging Rockstone35[reply]
Keep, per gadfium and Schwede. There has been coverage of this event long after it happened. ansh.666 19:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above, rare event in New Zealand that is well covered for WP:GNG, been made into a TV movie and a documentary, Person in it was named New Zealander of the Year and bravery awards were given for the event.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Taking a look at WP:EVENTCRIT, an event is very likely to be notable if it has widespread (national or international) impact and was covered widely. It is undeniable from the source list alone that this event was widely covered in New Zealand and hence there is [coverage]. As has been noted, this particular kind of crime is rare in NZ and so has a lasting effect. In summary I consider this criminal act has attracted significant media coverage conferring notability, and so it's article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This still comes up on various anniversaries and is mentioned (recently because it was one of the few times a Light Armoured Vehicle was used in New Zealand). I can find links for this, but it seems like it is snowing anyway. There are not many police shootings (at least not then) in New Zealand so when they happen they tend to have lasting effects. Aircorn (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it continues to be topical in the media. NealeWellington (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event itself it notable as it dominated national news for a number of days during and after. Article name might need changing perhaps, but that's about it. Ajf773 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For an event that nom alleges "does not appear to have any lasting significance", this has had a TV movie made 6 years after the event. That looks like lasting significance to me. Not to mention it unquestionably meets the general notability guideline as well, with 26 cites in the article, many of which are high quality significant coverage Jacona (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2022 (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.