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 kept, pursuant to further notable developments arising from the incident. bd2412 T 17:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday Alabama mall shooting

[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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every criminal action which gets reported the day(s) after should get an article on Wikipedia. Recreate if this turns out to have lasting notability. This is apparently simply an argument that turned violent, not some terrorist attack or other more exceptional event. It happened in a mall instead of at a bar, that's about it... Fram (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we were to lower the notability bar to the extent that it covered this kind of incident, it would be the kind of massive increase in the scope of Wikipedia that would need lengthy high-level discussions. "There was a fight, a couple of people got hurt and the police ended up shooting one of the people involved" is, sadly, routine in the US. ‑ Iridescent 12:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and the comments made by Iridescent. There are approximately 16,000 murders in the US per year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete an appallingly ROUTINE crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)changing iVote because of major new developments, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Because of the recent developments that show a potentially innocent man was mistakenly killed by police and the perp/perps are still at large, I don't think it should be deleted.51isnotprime (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID because, Today's headlines: Washington Post: ‘They shot the wrong man!’: Police said they killed a mall shooter — then said they made a mistake ; New York Times: Black Man Killed by Officer in Alabama Mall Shooting Was Not the Gunman, Police Now Say. Article needs major overhaul.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID - due to national (possibly international) level coverage - CNN, WaPo, NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc. Seems police are now saying the individual they shot "likely did not fire shots", and that this may be developing into a BLM event.[1] In any case, as this recent event has national level coverage meeting NEVENT criteria save for the SUSTAINED/LASTING aspect - which we can not evaluate at this juncture (lack of crystal ball) since we are unable to evaluate future media coverage we should err towards keeping the article and reevaluating at a later date when SUSTAINED may be evaluated. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator; well, that's bad luck, especially for the innocent victim of the police, but (to a much lesser degree) also for me as nom of a totally routine event which turns out to be more anyway. I'ld withdraw the nomination, but there are still outstanding deletes. @Iridescent, WilliamJE, and Cwmhiraeth:, any objections to closing this AfD and keeping this article at least for now, as it seems that it may well become a notable event after all? Fram (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my "delete" in view of the further developments. The subject is still not notable in my view but might become so, and it might be premature to delete the article at this time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, it's technically accurate but misleading to say this is a case of mistaken identity; as I read it, there were two individuals having an altercation, both carrying firearms, one of whom was the person shot by police, but they now believe it was the other person who fired into the crowd. If that's the case then this isn't a case of the police mistakenly shooting an uninvolved party, but of there being two suspects and the police only getting one of them. If that's the case, and unless there's any evidence of this getting any kind of continued or national coverage, I'd still stand by my delete vote; if it does escalate into something that becomes a major story it can always be recreated. ‑ Iridescent 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps in a week or so it will be more clear whether there is more to this story, or whether this second bout of coverage is probably the final one and we don't need an article after all. Fram (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting INDEPTH, NATIONAL news coverage this morning. Two hours ago National Public Radio: Family Demands Video Release After Alabama Mall Shooting Death. Investigation ongoing, but at the very least the police issued an official statement without verifying facts, and have had to walk it back. It is being treated by the press as possibly being yet another case where a police officer saw a young black man and pulled the trigger without following procedures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and this up on Washington Post (a reported story, not wire service,) Police change explanation — again — after killing black man they mistook for an active shooter.

And NBC national news, about 3 hours ago: Alabama police suggest black man killed by officer shouldn't have held his gun; Police in Alabama promised transparency after protests in response to an officer fatally shooting Emantic Bradford Jr. at a shopping mall..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:RAPID and WP:GNG. Plenty of good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a 2nd article duplicating this topic has been created : Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr..E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is, sadly, unique, because an armed citizen trying to help others was shot and killed by police in the mistaken belief he was the shooter. The fallout from this is going to be notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but replace the content with a redirect to Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., its duplicate article. That article has the exact same information (and more) is better sourced. It also receives more user views. The title of the other article is also consistent with other articles about newsworthy police-involved shootings. Sk5893 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Vote changed, see below. Sk5893 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sk5893, It is our usual practice to keep the first article started on a topic, this one, and merge the second article into it. Saves arguments over which to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to this page being around longer, but replace all content with the content from the page Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr. and rename this article to that as well, due to the reasons I stated above.Sk5893 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:Sk5893. Keep this and replace contents with copy now on Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr.. Sources now on this page have been added there, and that text is updated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant, unique event. Alas!, entirely predictable given unnecessarily aggressive tactics currently deemed acceptable. Consider merging with Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr. or replacing this with the contents of that page. Meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2018 (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.