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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Robert Godwin

[edit]

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

No indication that the event will have long lasting importance Jax 0677 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of reliable sources, and it has definitely led to a flurry of criticism of Facebook's response to the video that was posted. Mark Zuckerberg promised changes to Facebook in that regard in the future. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cannot always judge, within less than a week of the start of an event, how or why the event will have "long lasting importance". This event has certainly received the requisite national (and international) coverage and has generated commentary and controversy that continues even now, after the event itself has played out. General Ization ^Talk 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This might be just another "one of many" story, but this one matters too. --Matt723star (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above arguments. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @Jax 0677 -- unfortunately nothing about this killing was particularly unique or new in today's world. Repugnant, self-absorbed hedonist thug kills innocent person and then kills himself like coward after being cornered by cops. Quis separabit? 03:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is...this crime wouldn't have been notable if it weren't for the Facebook video and Facebook's response. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm generally not in support of crime events like this getting their own article (e.g., every time we have a school shooting...) but this case is more notable for the Facebook video, Facebook's response to criticism, and the manhunt. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the case itself, rather than the killer or the victim, has some notability. Deb (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasons. DrachenFyre (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quirks of this case will make it more likely to be searched for as an encyclopedic topic. bd2412 T 12:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG because the event was reported and discussed widely in the media, and "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A high profile murder case, enough media coverage to pass GNG. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the Christopher Dorner manhunt has a page, why not this? According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." TBMNY (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has plenty of reliable sourcesHadomaru (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It really does fits requirements and during the event it was covered heavily by notable resources which are found in the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2017 (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.