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The result was keep, per consensus and withdrawn nomination. No prejudice against combining this into a larger article. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of John Crawford III[edit]

Shooting of John Crawford III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. Brief bursts of coverage when it happened and when the guy wasn't indicted, but Wikipedia is not a news site. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn: see note below. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some structure and expanded the article out from a stub. while there is still much work to be done I believe it shows this is a viable article with potential for growth. Artw (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A brief sampling of recent news articles placing the death in a greater context: [1][2][3][4][5] Artw (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We probably should have an article on the 2014 protests in general (I would imagine we do already). Those sources would be a better fit for there, since they only say a sentence or two about the shooting of Crawford. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the WaPo article:
The father of another victim, John Crawford III, who was shot dead in a Wal-Mart store by police officers in a Dayton, Ohio, suburb, said the same criminal justice system he works for “is the same system I’m receiving injustice from.”
Police said they thought a BB gun the younger Crawford carried was lethal. A video of the shooting shows that he was on a cellphone before he was shot. A grand jury decided not to indict the officers who fired the shots.
“My son was murdered in the biggest retail store in the world,” Crawford said. “These cases should be open and shut. Let’s stay focused on that. Don’t forget my son’s name. They will all be vindicated.”
This seems sufficient depth. Artw (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty trivial to me, actually. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article in no way fits the description of WP:SENSATION. It is not tabloid nor yellow journalism. Contrary to WP:SENSATION this article does include extensive (exhaustive) fact checking. It does not bear the remotest resemblance to sensationalism or scandal mongering or gossip WP:NOTSCANDAL. It is neither 'infotainment' nor 'churnalism'. It is not the least bit related to 'frivolous "silly season" reporting. To suggest that this article fits the description of WP:SENSATION is a misobservation. Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this event is notable by itself. It is not just one of dozen(s) of similar events. It has created lasting effects. It is patently false to suggest that it is 'an incident being covered just now, after all the other protests attracted attention to this' -- as proven in the dates of reliable sources referenced in the article itself, already, including: 7-Aug, 8-Aug, 9-Aug, 11-Aug, 15-Aug, 21-Aug, 7-Sep, 21-Sep, 24-Sep, 25-Sep, 26-Sep, 29-Sep, 14-Oct, 25-Oct, 24-Nov, 26-Nov, 4-Dec, 5-Dec, 13-Dec, 14-Dec, and 16-Dec. (This makes one wonder if editors are even reading the references before proposing the article be deleted. A Google News search of <"John Crawford iii"> sorted by Date reveals articles in reliable sources on most dates since the shooting. Given the extensive press coverage of this case, from the day it took place until now, to suggest that it be deleted raises questions of WP:BIAS.) Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep, continued): It would not be appropriate nor encylopedic to try and combine this and similar cases into just one article. Such an article would be too long and clunky. Not every case needs a separate article, but the most significant ones do, and this event qualifies. The separate topics already have been expanded into longer standalone articles. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even if some might be short. The standalone articles are not duplicates, they do not overlap in enough ways to warrant merging, they each have significant independent text, and they do not need to be presented together to have sufficient context (as with characters from a novel, per WP:MERGE). Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking a stab at that right now, and the answer to how it can be expanded from a stub appears to be "really easily" - the timeline needs to be filled in, the grand jury investigation isn't covered, the media reactions are basically a big pile of sources and new aspects of the case are still coming to light, as well as continued activism in reaction to the case. I am really not seeing a dead, impossible to improve article at all. Artw (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider WP:RECENTISM. – JBarta (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the article will no doubt change over time to reflect new sources and the outcome of any legal cases I believe the basic bones of it are pretty fixed and unlikely to change too much, meaning that recentism shouldn't be too much of a problem. Artw (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Race a factor? I see no reason for you to besmirch black folks by suggesting they are trying to "squelch" the article. Black folks are rather appalled and saddened at this event just like white folks are. – JBarta (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a joking matter, TBH. You should probably take your comedy routine elsewhere. Artw (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, and if I had reversed the words black and white, my comment would have been ok with you? Unless you're willing to also address the absurdity of the original comment you are welcome to blow your admonition in some other direction. – JBarta (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is neutral but not racially color blind. Editing guidelines acknowledge that e.g., "editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability." There are extensive Wikipedia articles on Racism in general and Racism in the United States. It is disingenuous to imply that insight comes from merely reversing racial roles, while ignoring e.g. history, current statistics, Police brutality in the United States, and broader social contexts. Also, keep it civil WP:CIVIL. Benefac (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, it's a clear case of WP:Just Trying To Hide The Truth. Gotcha. – JBarta (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors will please note the Edit Summary by Roger Asai/71.220.210.127, regarding his comment above, which states: "My vote [is] to keep articles like this. Sorry I don't have the skills to make the bullet - hopefully someone can fix that part."[6] Benefac (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is entitled to his opinion but that's not a policy-based reason for keeping this article. In fact, there are very few policy-based arguments in this discussion at all. St★lwart111 06:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is a first-time editor, with one edit. Others on this page have made more than 10,000 edits. We might look for the policy-based reasons which support his opinion, per WP:NEWBIES, rather than dismissing his comment because he doesn't yet know the WP:BUREAUCRACY. Using WP:SARCASM ("Gotcha") is obviously so very helpful and especially appropriate with newbies. ;-) Benefac (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're responding to my comment with notes about another. The "gotcha" comment wasn't mine. My point was that as well-intentioned as his comment might have been ("newbie" or not) he's effectively shouting in space by arriving here and giving his opinion without any regard for whether or not that is an effective way of contributing to this discussion. Nonetheless, it is his opinion and he's entitled to it. The latest comments in this discussion suggest this should be kept because the victim was black and screw WP:EVENT, cops killing black people is a thing right now. The newbie's comments aren't half as dumb as that. St★lwart111 13:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I combined my replies to two comments into my one comment, good observation. This sometimes maintains the flow of discussion better than replying separately to each comment. Yes, the 'gotcha' sarcasm was not yours. I do not see the newbie's comment as shouting. Your characterization of recent comments strikes me as a straw man argument, that no-one made. Suggesting that these comments (or the newbie's) are 'dumb' or half-dumb strikes me as WP:INSULTING. Please keep it WP:CIVIL, tks. Benefac (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States which is divided by year and further divided by month. All these killings are in the list, but the question is... which deserve their own article? I'm not sure another article layer would be a good idea. Killings too big for the list yet not big enough for an article to be put in some sort of quasi-article-list thing? Not liking that. – JBarta (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might point out you voted four times. Five if you count "Keep, continued". Interesting way of influencing a deletion discussion. – JBarta (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE. "Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." "Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion." It was more clear to label my points and insert them in the appropriate places as replies, where they furthered the conversation, rather than to not label them or combine them into one comment. See also WP:Votestacking. Benefac (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been advised to strike your multiple "keeps". I've left the first one. I've also been advised to tell you that bolded AfD recommendation should be left only once. – JBarta (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, news to me, but I see that WP:AfD says: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Thanks for pointing it out. WP:GOODFAITH will be appreciated. Benefac (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - we have WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. We don't just re-print everything that appears in multiple newspapers on any given day. Multiple newspapers might give coverage to That cat in the tree but that doesn't make it notable. Beyond that, there's no way this meets the any "speedy keep" criteria. St★lwart111 07:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those are valid policy-based reasons for keeping this article. St★lwart111 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I am not seeing all that much that's solidly grounded in policy on the deletion side of the argument, just a bunch of vague fears and concerns. Artw (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're missing WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP just for starters. – JBarta (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The initial claim that the article only had "Brief bursts of coverage when it happened and when the guy wasn't indicted" proved to be false. Likewise claims that the sources are trivial. Given that this is not going away WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS are not applicable. The claim that it is WP:SCANDAL is just ridiculous and insulting. WP:ADVOCACY is either not applicable or likewise ridiculous. Basically what you've got is a big heap of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for taking the time to rebut. WP:scandal and WP:sensation simply don't fit this case and coverage of it. I see WP:ADVOCACY from the 'delete' side, and using rule-mongering (what's the WP: shortcut for that?) to cover it, but the consensus emerging seems to be 'keep' in any case. Benefac (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (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.
More