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. It appears that so close to the event we are not able to come to a consensus about whether this is a routine or notable incident. I recommend considering renominating the article in a few months to be better able to determine whether it continues to be covered and whether it is of lasting importance or not. Sandstein 07:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be (sadly) another shooting incident in the USA, I find no lasting coverage beyond descriptions of the event. Even what's described here is basically a transcript of the event as it took place, with no critical comment around the event or why it's notable beyond any other such event that happens all too often. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and expand it. I'd say the available video should be linked. Whatever cops were involved here are either incompetent or corrupt or both. They probably conspired and made false statements in their official capacity. 2605:A601:AC71:C100:E91B:3A2C:66C6:7F0E (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We require reliable sources to support this, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. While I think your criticism is valid, looking this subject up online shows many sources talking about this sad event. I think this article should probably have those sources and what they say added. Also, I think the issue is mainly that, because it is an event from only a day ago, their aren't many very apparent huge reactions to this to talk about besides the big media coverage. So, we should probably just add a tag saying to expand it and not delete it. Sorry for disagreeing with you. Thank you and have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. I think the article needs more analysis but it would be like saying to delete the George Floyd shooting page when it first got started. This will likely be a major case as it is currently making national headlines, not necessarily for the shooting but for the false press release and how the media accepted it without challenging it. John Oliver did a piece on this exact issue. Just search John Oliver "Police Say" Mrsunstar2 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
slightly hyperbolic, in`it? When we started the Wikipedia article of George Floyd, George Floyd was lynched in the middle of the street, in front of 50 eyewitnesses, and the video was seen in 140 countries within 24 hours. Professor Guru (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seriously? That a supposedly common shooting in the U.S. without any fatalities garnered international coverage in the United Kingdom [1], Greece, [2], and Hungary [3] speaks to its notability. Plus, the shooting took place in December, but the increased international coverage is coming in January. starship.paint (exalt) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google "Jason Harley Kloepfer"[4] and you'll find many articles, some international, mostly dating from within the last 48 hours. This was likely 'not notable' originally due to the fact Mr. Kloepfer wasn't mortally wounded in the encounter. It seems it's getting traction now because he's published the video. I'd suggest this is noteable as the video pretty well refutes the official police version of events. Padrone56 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - Whether to keep the page shouldn't be a question at this point. There have been developments and further publications since the story first aired and the original story is completely contradicted by said developments. The only reason the story changed is because the man had evidence of his own and the media were reporting what they had no reason to refute for the time. This is not "just another" police shooting, as sad of a low bar that is to pass. Having an article will serve the usual purpose of Wikipedia in summarizing and updating the events as they occur. Daneonwayne (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woah there, the victim is white, so why bother making an article about something that will vanish from the news and be conveniently forgotten about? Only evil right-wing media like the New York Post are mentioning the story, so any wikipedian with pronouns in his bio should realize the political implications of keeping this article, and vote for deletion like a good boy. You wouldn't want people asking why no reliable sources are talking about this incident, would you? 64.119.9.36 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't reliable sources quoting the shooting, and I don't really care what ethnicity the person is. Yes, please ask why there are no reliable sources, that's the whole point of this deletion exercise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that there are no reliable sources is false. Just review the sources in the article. starship.paint (exalt) 23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on the New York Post, which we don't accept as RS. The other sources seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping we can have a civil discussion here. I tend to value all points of view; when you take away the strong emotions, there is still an idea there the person could discuss. And maybe we make a better, contributory editor out of them, that's always appreciated on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand The discussion above points out that there is broad coverage about the event in WP:RS. I counted 10 recognizable WP:RS in a Google search. This meets WP:WEIGHT, which is the criterion for keeping an article. ––Nbauman (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should NOT be deleted. It should be amplified. Americans need to know what is happening. 184.23.23.16 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Article completely fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage is not above the amount expected for a local shooting. There are about 3,500 police shootings in the US. I do not assume we are going to start creating Wikipedia pages for each shooting, are we?
2. This shooting in particular isn’t notable (except of course being captured on CCTV camera). Cops (allegedly) lied (and I`m even doubtfull of that), they will not go to prison, the victim is going to get a nice $500,000 settlement and that will be the end of the story.
3. There is a strong case that deletion under WP:NPOV also applies. (Citizen)-Journalists shouldnt be writing (highly) sensationalised Wikipedia articles. I have read the article 5 times, and (besides the copy editing problem which I am not even going to mention here), the article lacks any form of Encyclopaedic distance and objectivity. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and not a news rag.
4. Even the alleged lie is a stretch. I just had a look at the video and compared it to the press release. And the questions I had were...
5. did he engage in a verbal altercation with the police? Yes, so where is the lie?
6. did he show empty hands when he emerge from the door? No, so where is the lie?
7. did he have an object/a gadget in his hands when he emerged at the door? Yes, so where is the lie?
8. I do not see any evidence that the SWAT officers who shot, and the officer who placed the camera in his trailer are the same person.
9. We need to be careful with writing Encyclopeadic articles before the police investigation or prosecutor probe has even formally started. Just on defamation alone this article needs to be deleted.
The claim that this is defamation is ludicrous, as well as the claim that the suspect engaged in a verbal altercation with police. The Independent is clearest on this: The press release initially shared by the office claimed that Mr Kloepfer “engaged in a verbal altercation with officers” and that he then came out of the home and “confronted” police which supposedly led to the 41-year-old being shot. But the surveillance shows a different version of events. Every other source either states that the suspect was complying, or that the police account is contradicted. WVTC: A new video of this incident provides a different account of what police say happened WLOS: The surveillance footage released by Kloepfer appears to show a conflicting account of the event. Furthermore, your assertion that there was indeed a verbal altercation shown in the video is unfortunately unsourced and can be taken as WP:OR. We’re not going to have articles on every shooting in the United States, but when a shooting gets international coverage in places like Greece, that should be clue enough that it is notable. starship.paint (exalt)
Keep and expand This is a chronicle of one of many incidents of police execution (attempted) and then a cover-up. Why this would be deleted is beyond imagination 97.93.25.193 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I transferred the above comment from the talk page. [5] Appears to be a mistaken placement by the IP. starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: According to the in-house video this apparently is a travesty. This article is sourced with breaking news sources and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news paper or breaking news outlet. There is absolutely zero neutral point of view. A source with a video states "Firing squad at 5 A.M. -- Police shoot unarmed and disabled man...". True or not this taints the article. Read one of the "Keep" comments: "Whatever cops were involved here are either incompetent or corrupt or both." How can an article like this even come close to a a neutral point of view or the other fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am not going to issue a !vote because there is enough actually for a speedy keep. The one lone "Delete" !vote is confusing. Shame on esteemed editors that support breaking news that is far too soon to be in an encyclopedia. We should change the title to "Crooked cops shoot unarmed disabled man". Wait! That is what I got from the article, sources, and editor's comments, so why not, if consensus against policy means we go with consensus? The good news is that this might be subjected to deletion at some later point. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: The article is likely subjected to EVENTCRIT. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand: This story is continuing to unfold with an active investigation. I expect more coverage in the future, and existing coverage is more than adequate, including from reliable sources such as The Independent. Easily meets WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The article does have some issues as editors have pointed out above, but those should be fixed while the article remains. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - Outside of local outlets, it looks like most of this "international coverage" people are pointing to are tabloid media. The UK's Mirror and Daily Mail and the NY Post have picked this up, probably because its good clickbait. Anecdotally, I live in NC and have not seen this covered in any local or state media that I regularly read (WRAL-TV, The News & Observer, etc. which covered other state police shootings of more interest like the Killing of Andrew Brown Jr.). We cite Hungary's RTL here, and according to RTL's own Wikipedia article: "Its informational content has also received heavy criticism. Its newscasts have emphasized crime and human interest stories, sensationalistic reporting, a faster-paced format, heavy use of graphics and visuals, and on-the-scene coverage. Its newsmagazine Fokusz has also received criticism, due to its mix of stories rotated around controversial issues and entertainment news. However, after 2014, the station's informational content, including its main evening news, has been including more political and serious news, improving its reputation over media critics and gaining credibility with viewers." I'd like to see more long term coverage from respectable regional or national US media or international media before saying we should keep this. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand: Regarding "3,500 police shootings in the US", the follow-up comment shows understanding as to why this has become notable with the phrase "except of course being captured on CCTV camera". The true baseline number isn't "3,500 police shootings", but "Number of police shootings caught on camera showing the person shot cooperating and compliant and contradicting the police agency's initial narrative". That number is much less, and makes this much more notable. It's also why the incident is getting widespread national and international coverage. 2605:A601:A130:B900:BA63:A515:F05A:108C (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find no international coverage in the last week, other than the Daily Mail and another UK tabloid; I've performed a .ca Google news search, no Canadian outlets have picked this up. Beyond the sensationalism, I'm not seeing international coverage in RS. It seems to have petered out in the news cycle. As the nominator, I've already ~voted, this is more of an fyi for the closing admin, however this discussion gets decided. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Commonplace is not the same as 'not noteworthy.' Cross Reference (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don’t see anything controversial. A man was suspected of kidnapping, emerged from the door with something in his hands with a woman behind him, and the cops shot him (non-lethal) to eliminate any possible threat without killing him.
You know as story is mostly sensationalised when yellow press from 3 countries in Europe picks up the story, but hardly any local media itself. Why the article is in Wikipedia is beyond me.
there is no police investigation announced.
there is no autopsy report
there is no District Attorney investigation
there is no Federal civil rights motion filed.
there are no reported protests
there are no activist/organisation
there are no statements from public officials
there are no proposals on law changes
there are no criminal charges
there are no arrests
there are no arraignments
there are no indictments
there are no lawsuits
this case literally has nothing (except a video that has freaked people out).
This case is a story that lands on the news desk of the Washington Post or Charlotte Observer local news editor, and he frankly doesn’t know what to do with the story after making 5-6 phone calls to the police chief, the victims attorneys, the district attorney and the counties medical examiner. The story is dead!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.247.251.178 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is very little discussion above that is based in policy, and what little there is is evenly divided. I'm tempted to protect the AfD, but for the moment I will stop at requesting that everyone base their opinions on relevant policies and guidelines (WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E come to mind) or accept that their opinions will be ignored otherwise. Certainly railing about users with "pronouns in their bio" isn't going to help reach a consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only put the pronouns there after another AfD where I misgendered someone. Can't please anyone anymore. Back to policy, I don't see any coverage about the incident outside of local media. No media Canada have picked up this story. ROUTINE? It's just an incident police responded to, with no lasting coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back to policy, I don't see any coverage about the incident outside of local media. … so Britain, Greece, Hungary and Tennessee are all in North Carolina? Because that’s exactly where some of the media sources are from, e.g. The Independent. Why insist on Canada? In fact, the January 2023 (and now February 2023 also!) sources are lasting coverage because the incident was made public and reported on in December 2022, and there is further potential for lasting coverage in March 2023 with the hearing, as well as the state bureau investigating. starship.paint (exalt) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we sit right on top on the US, so most stuff that gets coverage there at least gets some mention here. If it isn't, that's usually some sort of red flag that this isn't likely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And expand. Sources in article are sufficient for inclusion of this article. But it needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when this article was nominated for AfD [6], it was a ~350 word stub with 4 references. Now, it has been expanded to a 900+ words article, 9 references over 3 months, all from different outlets, coverage in 4 countries in total, WP:GNG has got to be satisfied. Plus potential for even more coverage as further developments are still possible. starship.paint (exalt) 07:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news event with no encyclopedic aspects. If every event that was covered in newspapers (and sensationalized online because there is video to show), WP would be no more than a news archive. Which it does not intend to be, as per policies WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. I have no idea why Hungarian and Greek web sites have picked this up, nor do I know if those are "serious" news sites. If you click on the name of the author of the Independent article you see a bunch of sensational articles, all of them video-based. Nothing about this appears in NY Times nor the Washington Post, and was not picked up by national TV networks, so I have to conclude that the crime itself was not of national importance, and the video was online click bait. It was uploaded to Youtube by the WTVC (Chattanoooga) tv station so I assume that's where foreign web sites found it, although one of the Greek sites references a Tweet. That said, I cannot understand why there is a strong movement here to keep this. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism of the Independent author having “video-based” articles is puzzling. Had you clicked on those articles themselves, they are revealed to be long written articles with an accompanying video, for example very recently US shoots down suspected Chinese spy balloon (which we even covered on ITN, so this journalist isn’t some small fry, he’s trusted with big stories) and Supreme Court email issues. Sometimes there isn’t even a video, example on Tyre Nichols. Also, if you’re wondering why Hungary or Greece (or Britain) picked this up, the answer is simple. This is not a run-of-the-mill shooting, that’s why. starship.paint (exalt) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete
uhm... actually it is theeee definition a run of a mill shooting.
the question is... should every run of the mill shooting have a Wikipedia article? the reason I`m asking is because
a) over 20,000 police shootings in the US alone, in the past 15 years do not have a Wikipedia article.
b) and over 5,000 police shootings where someone has ACTUALLY been killed do not get a Wikipedia article.
So I simply dont get why this shooting should get one. Once again. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia for historical worldwide relevant events, and not an aggregator for news rags.
c) We do not write Wikipedia articles based off on 3 newspaper articles of a mildly reported news event.
d) I`m German... I cannot fail to notice that Wikipedia is heavily US centric (and I get the reason why, and I have no problem with that).
But can you imagine what would happen, if Wikis started writing Wikipedia articles about SWAT shootings in
- The Philippines, a country with 6,000 (official) police shootings a year (perhaps even more)? Philipines a cop can just kill anybody and then claim 3 months later: ("oh its ok, he was a drug dealer"). Absolutely no Wikipedia articles.
- or Brazil, a country with 5,800 police shootings a year?
- or Venezuela, a country with 5,200 police shootings a year?
- or India, a country with 3,000 police shootings a year?
- or El Salvador, a country with 1,200 police shootings a year?
- or Nigeria, a country with 1,000 police shootings a year?
- Pakistan, a country with 800 police shootings a year?
- Can you imagine what would happen, if Wikipedia started writing articles about random trailer park police shootings in Kurgumiyew, in South Bashkortostan?
e) the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to capture historical, painful, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary, worldstopping, international 50 country newscycle police shootings (which this shooting is clearly not), in an encyclopaedic format.
Once again... I really dont see this shooting as a "world shaking" event like the Daniel Shaver shooting or the George Floyd lynching... that would need to be chronicled in an Encyclopaedia... It simply isnt. --- Once again Please DeleteProfessor Guru (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I've been on both social media and advocating before government agencies that police training is broken in the United States and many other countries, so broken that police shooting are common place to the point of being mundane. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and the article is developed well enough to stand on its own. No issues with POV or sourcing. The NOTNEWS arguments don’t hold much weight. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2023 (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.