Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant[edit]

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

Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. I'm getting awfully tired of Wikipedians either moonlighting as journalists or racing to create anemic pages for current news events without any regard for our notability standards. KidAd • SPEAK 21:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:NOTNEWS. At best this incident (in which a knife-wielding girl was lunging at another who was obv. attempting to flee and supine on the ground) may deserve mention upon Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. Oh sorry, it already is...--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Typical WP:ILIKEIT. KidAd • SPEAK 22:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the user Millionsandbillions, but personally I don't like it at all....I don't like anything about this case - I don't like that a teenager was about to stab someone, or that she got shot, or that this case has gotten so much media attention. (If the teen had just stabbed someone to death, none of us would have heard about it.) But the fact is that it has gotten a lot of attention, and so it's useful for Wikipedia to have one central article about the incident which complies the most accurate info possible, in as neutral of a way as possible, in one place. -2003:CA:8738:BEB3:D16D:104A:8578:890E (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— 2003:CA:8738:BEB3:D16D:104A:8578:890E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characterizing this argument as ILIKEIT isn't fair at all - they were pointing out why the event is likely to be notable long-term. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wot? This user wasn't even weighing in on it one way or the other. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hasn’t this just happened? I feel only time can tell if this is notable enough or not. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's practically a rule of Wikipedia that whenever a recent event gets an article, it goes to AfD. Likely closed as no consensus and the article is eventually merged by an IP user in 2025, with no one noticing or caring. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Definitely seems like it's making the rounds of significant coverage, especially given that it occurred hours after the trial of Derek Chauvin. It seems that reliable secondary sources are covering this incident (and it seems like they'll continue to). The page is still under construction. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now with no prejudice to relisting in a couple weeks. While I agree there should be an embargo on current events before they may become articles, there is no concrete policy in place and it would be inappropriate to change right now. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This incident has resulted significant coverage online in news anchors, newspapers, and websites. There has been other pages on wiki about incidents similar to this. wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. This is an event of clear national significance and with rapidly developing coverage. I think this nomination is pre-mature and that its too soon to make a determination regarding notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to a standard keep on the grounds that the killing has continued to receive developing coverage for nearly a week and that this coverage has raised serious implications about the use of force, police body cameras, and the role of the Columbus Police Department. At this point it is still too early to determine the type of lasting impact that will occur. However, the sourcing we have right now, here in the present, demonstrates that this is more than a routine police shooting and that there will almost certainly be some kind of lasting impact. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been "over a week" since the event, only 6 days... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, I'm not sure why I said "over a week." Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was already considering bringing this to AfD myself, there have been a few of these articles pop up this year... a non-notable person was attacking another non-notable person with a knife, and got shot by police... yesterday (literally)... and all the news channels are mentioning it today... that does not imply that it is going to be noteworthy a week from now, a year from now, ten years... as saddened as I am by a young person losing their life, the article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are national news articles that were published on the killing less than 40 minutes ago. I really think its pre-mature to delete a developing event that continues to receive national attention. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Easily meets GNG. A simple Google search demonstrates this. See also WP:RAPID WP:IMPACT etc Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly notable. It may not be as notable as George Floyd seeing the circumstances surrounding the shooting, but it is notable nonetheless. SunDawn (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Addressed by Jen Psaki and LeBron, resulted in major protests. Who knows what the next 24 hours will hold. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly notable that a person who was attempting to kill abother person was shot by police. Thats what we pay the police for, to protect and serve. Additionally, this is one of the worst written articles I've ever seen. Very little lasting notability on this at all. I'd say WP:NOTNEWS applies here.JOJ Hutton 03:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS for which it is much too early to know if it will have any kind of long-lasting "national significance". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep The article (at the moment I'm typing this) is undergoing a major expansive edit, and a discussion about deletion should not take place until its completion. Yes, this is a current event. Even so, it's already clear that this case will inevitably gain more notability in a short timeframe. The incident sparked widespread outrage as soon as it erupted into the media, including from prominent public figures. --GouramiWatcherTalk 04:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as an unbelievably premature nomination. I continue to strongly support a week- or month-long moratorium on insensitive NOTNEWS nominations upon an article's creation; I have personally seen people who were involved in disasters that get immediately nominated develop negative and traumatic feelings towards Wikipedia as a result. May I note that what NOTNEWS actually says is "don't write articles like newspieces", not "don't write encyclopedia articles about stuff that just happened"? Vaticidalprophet 05:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why are we noting the police killing of a violent criminal? Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS ("most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems as if most of the delete votes so far are based on the commenters' opinion that the officer was justified, so therefore the event itself is unimportant. This is a risible argument and should not be considered as a legitimate !vote by a closing admin. Regardless of your personal opinions on the subject, it is an unequivocal, impartial truth that there are many people outraged by this case who have taken to the streets in protest. Many prominent figures have weighed in on this case specifically, and almost every major news outlet in the US and many internationally (BBC, Guardian, Indepedent, Le Monde, RT) have covered it as well. The outsized attention and coverage in the media make this case rise above most others of a similar nature, passing GNG. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllegedlyHuman, I've certainly inferred the same conclusion from some of the delete !votes but I think it's a bit unfair to say most of them are. I've personally not seen the footage so I've not been able to form an opinion on the justification or lack thereof of either party's actions. I'd note that international news coverage, in and of itself, doesn't demonstrate notability of a recent event. It demonstrates its newsworthiness for sure but as WP:NOTNEWS says, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. I'd be more swayed by an argument that uses reliable sources other than newspapers to demonstrate notability, but because of the very quick article creation, there are no such sources yet in existence. This isn't to say that there won't be at some point in the future, but unfortunately, as far as I can see, that isn't the case right now. SITH (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was certainly true for when I made the comment (just referring to the delete !votes above). I've made my personal !vote to keep elsewhere, I just wanted to address some !votes which concerned me. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GNG, BLP1E, and NOTNEWS. Enough with the knee-jerk creation of articles on non-notable black individuals just because they were killed by police (in this case, a knife-wielding (Redacted), meaning the police were actually performing their job duties). Coverage in numerous sources is expected because the media thrives on racial unrest in the US, as it generates clicks and ad revenue. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This “event” was pretty notable because ironically, it occurred around the same time Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd. LaDanian1000000 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear WP:NOTNEWS violation: not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:...News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Regardless of the media seizing on this case right now to get their clicks, the details of this case and, say, the Floyd killing, are completely different. It is thus highly unlikely that this will be noteworthy even a month or two from now. WP:NOTCRYSTAL, so this doesn't get to stay just because people think it will have lasting notability. The coincidence of the Chauvin trial is irrelevant (though may partially narratively explain why the media seized on this). Crossroads -talk- 08:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's been addressed by every major news outlet in the country as well as the federal government and celebrities. It has sparked large scale protests across multiple cities. --User:Namiba 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Worries about US media et al.; if this were really as significant as some claim, it might get coverage in places further afield. As of this morning (UK time) and as of right now too; The Guardian didn't have anything about this incident. In fact, they do have coverage of an incident. But it's not this one. As per my previous comment, NOTCRYSTAL is a clear concern, and those claiming GNG are not considering the "sustained" part of that guideline - if the coverage is not sustained, this is just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL police shooting (one which seems non-controversial, US clickbaitism aside, in particular). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Biden briefed on ‘tragic’ police killing of Ma’Khia Bryant, White House says (Guardian, April 21, 2021) Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Ohio shooting: Columbus police kill black teenage girl (BBC) Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC) US mourns fresh police killings in wake of Chauvin conviction (France 24) Beccaynr (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Ohio county where girl, 16, was killed is state’s deadliest for police shootings (Guardian, April 21, 2021) Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact it has already been run out of the front pages and headline sections by more recent events just two days after it happened strongly speaks to the fact it has no lasting significance at this stage - good sign this is WP:TOOSOON. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An event does not need international front page coverage to pass GNG. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:ITN/C. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what it would need two days after the event. Otherwise any claims of lasting significance are too caught up in the moment and the zeitgeist to be of merit. Not that this is likely to close as anything but no consensus at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the depth and breadth of coverage is the key consideration for assessing the significance and notability, but all I did to find the first Guardian link was scroll down the main page, and it is still there at this moment. Similarly, that is how I found the France 24 link. I did have to go to the BBC's US section to find the link above, and the second Guardian link that offers context and analysis was linked to the first one. Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare with 2021 Suez Canal obstruction, which not only had frontpage coverage in many, many sources but already had some of them suggesting how the incident could have long lasting impact consequences before it was even resolved (coverage still continuing, including about said impacts, now that the ship's been freed). Here what we have is a mixture of zeitgeist pleasing topic (the trial which was noteworthy enough to post on the main page) and sensationalism. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of long-lasting impact consequences include, from WaPo: "Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), the only two Black Democrats in the Senate, were among several high-ranking officials pointing to Bryant’s death as an example of the need to overhaul policing," and the BBC: "The White House linked the shooting - which happened about an hour before former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder in the May 2020 death of George Floyd - to "systemic racism"." Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Politicians commenting on it in the immediate aftermath are not "long term consequences". Societal attitude towards police shootings changing (what Floyd's death caused) is, but we have no evidence this will or has caused anything beyond routine news coverage. Big ship getting stuck in small canal = not a "long term consequence". Global shipping being delayed for months thereafter = yes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above and below, it is not only politicians making such comments (even though this seems to support the significance and how this is not WP:BIO1E), but also news sources providing secondary analysis, context, and commentary, e.g. Talks narrow on a compromise to changes in US policing laws (AP) "The revived effort, led by Black lawmakers including Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, comes at a pivotal moment. The nation is on edge after the case, the deaths of other Black Americans — including of a 16-year-old girl who was brandishing a knife about the time the Minneapolis verdict was announced — and almost a year of protests accusing police of brutal actions that often go unseen." Beccaynr (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That (which is a trivial mention and not significant coverage) seems to support this is only noteworthy in the wider scheme and not as an event of its own. A mention in an ==Aftermath== section in Murder of George Floyd might be appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EFFECT, there is discussion by WP:DIVERSE independent and reliable sources of how this event is related to views and behaviors of society and legislation. Another example from WaPo: "In Ohio, Bryant’s death sparked calls for change from local activists and elected leaders alike." Per WP:GEOSCOPE, there is extensive national and international coverage, which makes notability more likely. Per WP:INDEPTH, multiple sources are placing this event in context, including with "thematic connection," and there is secondary commentary about the significance. Another example: There’s hope for racial justice in America. But it comes from the people – not the courts (Guardian Opinion, Simon Balto) "And yet, as the news of Chauvin’s conviction spread, so too did a parallel story: 20 minutes before the guilty verdict had come down in Minneapolis, police in Columbus, Ohio, had shot dead 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant. Ms Bryant, a Black child, is at least the 65th person killed by police in the United States since Chauvin’s trial began late last month; as the New York Times reported, as of last weekend, police were killing an average of three people a day throughout the course of the trial." Per WP:PERSISTENCE, That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable, and the analysis and discussion within the current coverage appears to support the suitability for an encyclopedia article per this guideline as well. Beccaynr (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The widespread and in-depth coverage, including the secondary commentary about the significance, supports notability for an article. Additional sources include: Ma’Khia Bryant: Everything we know about the police shooting of a teenage girl (Independent UK); Students Demand Ohio State Cut Ties With Police After Ma'Khia Bryant Shooting (Newsweek), Who Is Ma'Khia Bryant? 16-Year-Old Black Girl Shot Dead by Columbus Police (Newsweek); Ohio protesters march after Ma'Khia Bryant shooting (Reuters); Columbus police release bodycam footage, identify officer in fatal shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant: What we know (USAToday); Fatal police shooting of Black teenager in Columbus sparks new outcry (Washington Post) Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whether or not wrongdoing occurred, and whether or not it will be of lasting importance, it is of national significance now, and crucial to current events and eventual history of Columbus, Ohio, the city I have written extensively about. Local and regional importance to Central Ohio, undoubtedly. It is also one of the most noted incidents of racial strife in the city, a strong example of the especially recent trend of this struggle for minorities and against the police. ɱ (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to reassessment and, if appropriate, recreation at a later point. Let's keep opinions of whether or not the shooting was justified out of it. The only relevance that has is considering the public response to any subsequent decisions in the review of the officer's conduct, which is way down the line at this point. Can we establish that this event satisfies the criterion for lasting notability two days after the event happened, when the details are still fuzzy? No, no we can't. That's why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Just because another black person was killed by a police officer while Derek Chauvin was on trial does not give that event notability, because notability is not inherited. As I say, down the line, maybe in a month or two, there might well be the lasting coverage to make the event more than news. But at this point, it's just a footnote to 2020–2021 United States racial unrest and another entry on Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. SITH (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: after to reading some of the !votes above, I'd note WP:RAPID suggests several alternatives to deletion such as merging which is what has actually already taken place at the two articles I mentioned in my original !vote. I'd strongly oppose any snow closure as policies and guidelines have been clearly used to argue either side in this discussion. SITH (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a news source, but many current events are important to popular culture and movements. As the most recent incentive to continue the BLM movement for many activists and protestors, until BLM is declared successful by the general public, I urge that we keep this article online and with new information from releases and findings as they come. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except we are not here to WP:Right great wrongs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Irregardless of her actions—Wikipedia still notes violent offenders, serial killers, school shooters...etc—her death has inspired wide coverage and protests, ergo her death is notable. DMT biscuit (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is likely just an event that happened at the same time as the verdict, it's already fallen off the front pages here in Canada, telling me it's not as significant as we think it is/was. Open to moving to draft space until we can prove it's either notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is now an event of national significance and covered in a large number of RS (see sources in comments above). Easily passes WP:GNG. What makes it notable are mass protests and wide coverage in mainstream press. Sure, this is very different from the case of George Floyd (according to the video, she did not just held a knife, but was trting to kill another girl with that knife). But it does not matter in terms of wikipolicy. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This doesn't even remotely fall into any of the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS. It is clearly not original reporting, who's who, or gossip, so I must assume it was nominated as "routine reporting," but it certainly doesn't resemble any of the examples given under that heading. Nominator may be confused by the fact that this type of event happens with embarrassing frequency, but that does not make it any less notable. If WP can keep pages on every major tropical storm and hurricane that ever happened (including non-deadly ones), it can afford to keep pages about individual BLM incidents, which are arguably of far greater cultural significance. Krychek (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the news coverage it has gotten, especially since the actual killing occurred within the same day of Chauvin's verdict. I'd say the protests and news coverage make it pass my notability bar for an article, but I'd be interested to hear other people's concerns, as well. 223.229.217.53 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC) — 223.229.217.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep on the basis of significant coverage, and that its timing ensures it will be remembered and mentioned in, say, 10 years. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's been a very large amount of coverage on this. I don't also don't find arguments along the lines of "I think people will find this shooting justified ==> WP:NOTNEWS as no one will care in a week" at all convincing, that's not a determination for any of us to make, and the existing coverage already seems sufficient. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG. Garcia1865 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article had a notability tag yesterday--what prompted me to remove it was seeing the video of WH Press Secretary Jen Psaki delivering remarks about it. Clearly not WP:ROUTINE coverage. I don't think WP:BIO1E arguments are persuasive either, because it is not a biography, and BIO1E says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, which is what this article does. Enwebb (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per GNG and the nom just complaining about other things rather than noting why they wanted deleted (and Kieronoldham's cold-hearted commentary and 'oh wait!' sarcasm isn't appreciated either), and all the NOTNEWS arguments are hollow because if the local and regional media still follows a story, that's the standard for me. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT SURE YET
    • Question:

The article clearly states that the body cam recording shows that the girl had a knife. That would be kind of self defence / help action if the girl was shot because of this. She had no right to attack anybody. It does not matter whether she was black, white, green - whatever. The laws are for everyone. So this point should be then really followed. It should be avoided that Wikipedia makes a heroe of an attacker. Royalrec (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we are making a "heroe [sic]" of her. WP articles are written from a neutral point of view. The editors contributing to this article are just documenting the event. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 04:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been picked up by dozens of national and international news outlets in only 48 hours. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 22:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the widespread news coverage as it is an event of national significance Yeungkahchun (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as this is being widely covered as a racially charged police killing and it has been discussed at length by multiple news organizations and by the White House press secretary. Sevenperforce (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Sevenperforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per above Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been covered by major news sources and is notable. To those who say that it is run of the mill - please reconsider. This is something that should be covered on WP, especially in the broader scheme of the Black Lives Matter movement and unrest in the United States. In fact, as I type this, CNN is covering the killing on television. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 04:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously. X-Editor (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve: Passes WP:GNG and is effectively a current event. I would also like to note I'm concerned about the motivations behind a couple people here who are voting to delete. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though many news reports and lawyers have said it was a justified shooting, the story has gotten enough news attention that it deserves it's own article. Would also argue that the title of the page should be change to shooting instead of killing, if the police officer is deemed to have acted appropriately. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the article is kept it should be changed to the more appropriate SHOOTING OF Ma'Khia Bryant. Yodabyte (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the flowchart at WP:DEATHS. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely tragic as this case is, based on the released body-camera footage, this is not remotely close to the George Floyd murder case or any of the other cases that, justifiably, have rallied calls for reforms to the US police system. This particular case involves the police acting against an imminent knife attack where another person was in imminent danger of being fatally stabbed. There is no evidence that race, gender, or age of the people involved played any role, even if the media wants to make it so. I strongly suspect that attention to this case will fizzle once people realize that the shooting was not an example of police brutality, racism or corruption. As for this article, WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant policy here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you personally think the reaction is sensible or not is irrelevant. This event has resulted in major protests and coverage in essentially every major newspaper in the US and around the world. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my vote has nothing to do with whether I think the reaction is sensible. It is that this tragic event is unlikely give any long term impact on police reform efforts. The coverage is widespread, but unlike the horrific George Floyd case where WP:LASTING applies, the coverage is likely to be short-term. Therefore WP:NOTNEWS applies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove There is no good reason for this wikipedia page to exist especially given the context of the case, wikipedia isn't a newspaper where we rush to make the fastest pages based on little information for politicized topics. Anish631 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Anish631[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets notability guidelines per WP:GNG and probably per WP:EVENTCRIT as well. I'd also asks whoever closes this to disregard the delete votes that speculate as to whether the shooting was justified, which are clearly not grounded in policy. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only does this pass WP:GNG, I doubt this is going to be a short-term event. So far, some of the details of the fight aren't known, so at the very least, I think this should be kept until more details come out. As WP:RECENT says, the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 article was developed as the event progressed, so it could happen for this too. Coolperson177 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I say keep as well, but enough details were available within hours. Looks like a completely justified shooting. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is receiving relatively the same amount of press coverage as other police killings that have gotten the attention of Black Lives Matter, so it should stay. Songwaters (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just glad I don't live in a country where killings by police (whether justified or not) are so common as to even raise the possibility that one is not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to also say Keep since I already thought what other Keep !voters said and I'm unconvinced by the Delete !voters. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see, leaning towards delete: I think that we should play it by ear when it comes to this article. We don’t know how this is going to play out since this is still in the works. If there is a trial held for this officer, and that trial comes to national attention like the Chauvin one did, then we should keep this article. However, if it so happens that nobody cares and they move on to the next thing, then I think this should be deleted. After all, many users here are saying that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lots of deaths appear in the local news, but you never hear about them the day after the airing of the story. Do they ever get a WP page? No. So, I think we should wait and see what happens. HelenDegenerate (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those deaths are police killings? How many spark protests? How many get international front page headlines and 24/7 news coverage? Seriously. This event is far more notable than most deaths because the outside world has decided so. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question— how many were police-related deaths? Surprisingly, quite a few (I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m condemning the cops, because I’m not). HelenDegenerate (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Seven results at just The New York Times. (Archive link) Samboy (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Very relevant topic. WP:GNG. Albertaont (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per BLP. Event involved several non-notable minors. There should be a much higher threshold for enduring notability of this shooting for it to become an article. Minnemeeples (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems like there's more to this case than meets the eye. There are questions about why the officer didn't just use his taser to subdue the girl instead of shooting her four times. Love of Corey (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By a raw total, keeps currently outnumber deletes 41–14. Moving to close. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be so sure, WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing; and looking at stuff like this (US) or this (worldwide) shows little hope that this is anything but WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E only applies to BLPs, which this is not. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how many Keep !votes lack any substance at all, fail WP:CRYSTAL (and/or ignore other Wikipedia standards), or make false claims such as mass protesting or continued worldwide coverage. Or how, only 3 days later, this story is already barely a mention in the local news. Already, the national attention has moved on to the next police shooting because this story isn't going anywhere further. As I had previously stated in my !vote above, this won't stay news for long enough to make it notable. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The event continues to get coverage though. The New York Times just published another article about it today (archive link). Samboy (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that article is in no way significant coverage about this event, it only uses the event as an introduction to the bulk of the article regarding "Black girlhood"... there is no continued coverage about the event itself, no scandals, no new information coming out (until the BCI releases the findings of their investigation)... barely mentioning this event as a segue into a story about something else because it is recent (media sensationalism) does not equal significant, nor continued, coverage... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: No continued coverage? Where are you getting that? On a Google search (link here) for within the last 24 hours, there's pages of hits, both foreign and domestic. --Kbabej (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, here’s an article from today covering the shooting from PBS (archive link). That’s 767 words, all about this shooting. And, yes people can be notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion from just one event that happened in their lives. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Maybe at the time of the nomination, the subject was not notable, but now it definitely is. All these articles were published in the past 12 hours: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. User:KidAd, It's time to withdraw this nomination. Mottezen (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ongoing, continued coverage of an impactful event making international sources. —Kbabej (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of comments here border on racism that is disturbing to see in a deletion discussion on Wikipedia. But since racism exists in the off-line world, I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see it here, too. How about we assess notability of the shooting and not whether or not the victim deserved to die? SMH Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the borderline-racist comments are pretty unnerving to see here. Perhaps some outside admin should be made aware of the conduct of some of these users? Love of Corey (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Around half of the delete votes here were of the form "I think this shooting was justified so no one will or should care about it", which is very disappointing to see. Racist? Probably not, but very disappointing nonetheless that people are discussing that instead of the actual notability of the event. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "border on" is the right way to put it. Not a good argument regardless. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that vein, it isn't racist to say "the shooting was justified, so it isn't notable". It's a poor argument to be sure, but it isn't racist. In reality, it should be a non-story, a completely justified shooting that, had it not occurred, we'd be talking about how the police just watched as someone was stabbed/murdered. Virtually ALL such cases should be local news stories. They are blown out of proportion based on the media's sensationalism. The fact that it HAS been blown out of proportion IS notable and it SHOULD be kept as an article, much like the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Buffs (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is important in the context of civil rights in the United States. Regardless of who is guilty of what, it is a case of interest in the same way that the articles on Trayvon Martin and George Floyd are. ‑‑Lunarhound 16:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, and in context, demonstrating that there are a range of police uses of force, responses to them, and differences of opinion - and that body camera footage has been here used in an effort to defend the officer in question, with many commentators seeing the footage as significant evidence that the shooting was legally and ethically justified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - addressed on a presidential level; continuing to garner a steady amount of international coverage six days after the incident (which speaks against the above argument that the story has already been addressed). (Edit: Looks like I forgot to log in. Oh well.) 2603:6080:6A00:1500:3584:DFCD:AA3:D6D1 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is no way that this is a WP:NOTNEWS violation. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It may have not been notable a week ago, but enough media has covered it to warrant keeping the article. Enter Movie (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still getting sustained, significant coverage to meet GNG.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. This is well beyond the necessary coverage. It is notable and meets all relevant criteria. Keep snowball...someone shut it down Buffs (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & EXPAND While some action by the police would have been justified, there should always be consideration of less-lethal alternatives.
12 minutes from 911 call to cops arriving, nobody dies, or is significantly injured. 10 seconds later one person (who lived in the house) was dead. It should be an event for consideration.
I'm not convinced the woman in pink was out of the line of fire, and shooting someone inches away was reckless. A threat doesn't indicate she would have been killed, and a knife injury may be less lethal than a bullet. Keelec (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia policy? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&oldid=1114721992"