Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 NYPD officer killings


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning   talk  16:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 NYPD officer killings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of a myriad of responses to the Eric Garner and Michael Brown protests that have occurred in recent days. Also, thousands of police officers have been killed in the line of duty within the past 10 years, and several dozen NYPD casualties have occurred within that time, very few of them within articles. As all other NYPD casualties in the line of duty are as heavily covered by news sources, this barely meets WP:GNG and may be merged into the Garner or Brown articles' responses sections at best; additionally, this is a mere stub and there is a paragraph in the Garner article that contains as much content on the shootings than this entire article. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Now there is strong consensus to keep, so I am withdrawing. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Clearly fulfills WP:GNG and other relevant WP:EVENTCRIT. Slayings have been directly addressed by President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder,, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been addressed by the President and AG only because of its very close connection to the two deaths in the summer of 2014. 814 NYPD officers have died in the line of duty since it was founded. We don't have articles for most of them. Besides, the Mayor personally addresses all violent NYPD line-of-duty deaths, as well as violent acts against the NYPD. If this article is to be kept rather than redirected, it should have notability of its own rather than based solely off these two events. Epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Considering the shooting was sparked by ongoing, widely-covered protests regarding the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, the fact that this was an actual fatal, retaliatory shooting, and the fact that the media was already on this from day one (not just because of the motivation, but because these were the first actual murders of NYPD police officers since 2011), already indicates a great amount of notability. The only thing that needs to be done with this article is a great amount of extension. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it is one of a myriad of responses to the court decisions; others include even more widely covered protests without articles. The only reason why this event is so widely covered is because it happened right in the middle of the protests. If it were outside the scope of the protests, this may not have been so widely reported. Epicgenius (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy-based argument. An article simply on these NYPD officer killings could be thousands and thousands of characters. It would not be appropriate in any manner to include wholly within the Garner or Brown articles. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but WP:NOTNEWS is. Epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, well it clearly is news. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet most of all we have is speculation. We do not have a clear motive. We have an article that says "2 officers were killed by person A because of B. Obama said C about this, and Esaw Garner said D." Maybe at this time tomorrow news coverage of this event would have gone viral. Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't how most of these articles start out? Under speculation? And besides, there is now controversy being generated about how the protests and reactions to the Garner and Brown deaths have encouraged the shooting. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This has had extensive media coverage that passes notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant coverage by reliable sources to back it so passes WP:GNG, already is having an effect and will probably be lasting so passes WP:EVENT. Merging it into Garner is an option, but not one I would take considering the political implications of the event, which wouldn't mesh well in Garner's page. --RAN1 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The basic concept of WP:EVENTCRIT seems to be: will people care about this event per se, not only as a passing tangent to some other, more significant event? The answer here seems to be "yes," as suggested by the closely analogous Murder of Lee Rigby. In that event, as in this one, an armed-forces officer was murdered in "revenge" for alleged wrongs committed by members of the organization represented by the victim. Rigby's murder became very notable as a stand-alone incident in the broader context of the war on terror; these murders will be similarly entered into international conversation.
 * That said, this article will probably be difficult to keep neutral, as #BlackLivesMatter people will try to refocus attention on the "original" outrage and their opponents will try to use this event to discredit the movement. FourViolas (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is easy enough to do with semi protection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This event has had a lot of media coverage and is certainly notable among violence against police. It's been two days since this happened and it's still trending heavily. The article could use some restructuring though but otherwise very worth keeping. Benbuff91 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is relevant regardless of the larger situation, as shown by numerous other articles, including the previously mentioned Murder of Lee Rigby and the 2014 Queens hatchet attack. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Libertarian12111971, Plot Spoiler Dwscomet (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. To me, it's rather obvious.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.