Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamir E. Rice


 * 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. Based on WP:SNOW following the move to Shooting of Tamir Rice. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Tamir E. Rice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to be notable for only one-event and because Wikipedia is not New York Times. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to Shooting of Tamir Rice The Ferguson situation is covered by Shooting of Michael Brown (not Michael Brown), in conjunction with 2014 Ferguson unrest. This is in line with WP:BIO1E's recommendation that the article "usually should be written about the event instead." The Trayvon Martin article covers his bio, his shooting, and the aftermath, but that seems to be an exception to the policy (maybe by WP:COMMONNAME). I think the page in question here should move to Shooting of Tamir RIce, with redirects from Tamir E. Rice, Tamir Rice, and other titles which come into use in ongoing coverage.
 * I believe it deserves to be kept according to WP:NOTNEWS because a) it is widely "verifiable" in a great number of WP:Reliable sources, and b) it is likely to be of "historical importance" because other unarmed-black-youth stories, such as those of Martin and Brown, have inspired extended responses and this case involves the death of a young child, which will probably stir people up even more and spawn even more active debate on policing practices. FourViolas (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Vote for deletion It seems the notability of this event, in media coverage, relates wholly to the controversy in Ferguson and a larger national conversation, and is not about this specific boy or tragic incident itself. 96.237.108.28 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No vote, but comment, added section at Anonymous regarding their shutting down of Cleveland's website and video posted due to this incident. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep but move to Shooting of Tamir Rice. surfbird (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep quick google reveals how rapidly this has become notable. But move to Shooting of Tamir Rice, and somebody needs to improve it.ShulMaven (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am happy to work on improving the text of the article but am not confident I can add that content without disrupting Wikipedia-style HTML and formatting. Is someone here willing to apply Wikipedia formatting if I provide a draft of content?surfbird (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep because this AFD proposal is another idiotic example (after so many others) of Wikipedia dogmatism regarding notability. There's people here who have nothing better to do and it makes them feel important I guess. People at large will want to find information about this case, that information is available from reliable and trusted sources, and that's what WP should supply. Contact Basemetal   here  11:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: Yes, I agree people will want info curated from WP:RS and that the page should therefore stay. I'd also like to gently remind you of our good-faith and personal attack policies; I'm sure User:Anupmehra knows what they're doing and has perfectly legitimate intentions, such as fighting WP:Recentism. The original article was in fact written in news style, and I think there was nothing wrong with its nomination for deletion. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - purely on the basis of notability. established.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - While of course this takes place straight in the middle of the Michael Brown shooting affair, this is still notable enough considering the circumstances of the situation, i.e. the shooting victim between 12 and the fake pistol (which could launch a new debate on whether realistic-looking yet fake guns like airsoft or BB guns should be counted in the debate of gun control). Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - i think it should be deleted. just my 2 cents my name is drugzarebad69
 * Keep but move to Shooting of Tamir Rice - As of November 26, 2014 at the latest, this event is receiving more primary coverage in reliable/major U.S. and international news outlets (e.g., the BBC, NYTimes, AP) and is no longer a secondary/tangential event being reported on in relation to Shooting of Michael Brown (as it was described above in a vote to remove the article). Furthermore, while this event does directly pertain to a larger national conversation (this was also used as a point in the same vote to remove above), the does not necessarily mean it isn't worthy of its own article. Police brutality and racism in America was a larger national conversation long before Michael Brown was shot, yet this did not stop the creation of an article regarding his shooting. I agree that Tamir's notability for a Wikipedia article solely pertains to this event, so it should be moved (it appears it has been moved already, though, so is this AFD not relevant anymore?). It's already become historically significant in part because it occurred right around the same time of another historically-significant event. Jp4gs (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Shooting of Tamir Rice, very similar comportment of many police officers to Shooting of Michael Brown. Trackteur (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tragic, obviously, but there's no indication this rises to notability in the encyclopedic sense.  This is clearly in WP:NOTNEWS territory. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (noting that the article has already been moved). This is obviously notable, given the attention this story has received on the national stage, its relation to the Michael Brown Case, and its relation to a variety of contentious issues in American politics. Wikipedia is not improved if someone searching for Tamir Rice finds nothing instead of this article. L33tminion (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (as already moved). Googling Tamir Rice yields almost 6 million results; I'd say it's notable enough. Argymeg (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable, and very much so, based on tremendous press coverage. Everyking (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep When it's getting in depth coverage from reliable sources in the UK (BBC, Guardian, Independent) and Australia (Sydney Morning Herald) it counts as notable. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as this is neither direct journalism, or in any sense routine coverage.  And WP:BLP1E was a valid call to make when the page was at a page named after the victim, but someone has very properly followed wp:Bold and moved it to Shooting of Tamir Rice.  The deletion nomination was plausible when first made, but the conditions that made it a candidate for deletion have all changed. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Highly significant number of sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Request for closure of deletion discussion Two rationales for deletion have been stated: WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The first is not relevant since User:Cyanidethistles's move, and the second is by majority (of arguments, not votes) inapplicable because the event is historically relevant and its coverage has been far from routine. Can we declare consensus? The page is being heavily viewed, and I think it reflects poorly on WP that all these viewers are seeing a somewhat astonishing deletion tag. FourViolas (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Having the tag there just makes us look ridiculous to all of the people coming to view the article. Everyking (talk) 02:56, 29 November 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.