Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Meagan Hockaday

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. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Meagan Hockaday

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

No indication that this event is one of lasting importance as discussed on our notability guideline for events at WP:EFFECT. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a number of references demonstrating ample press coverage. How do you justify this nom? Everyking (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyking: the nom was not related to the number of sources in the article, but that the event does not appear to meet WP:EFFECT. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Second User:Everyking's comment. There are a variety of references demonstrating some lasting importance. OR drohowa (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The shooting had no lasting impact. Nearly all of the press coverage was within a short time span. US police shootings have, unfortunately, become relatively commonplace lately. This one doesn't have the racial aspects that would make it notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Meagan Hockaday was an African American woman. Her death has been taken up in recent protests around #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName. I will add this detail to the article. Vaparedes (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Meagan Hockaday was an African American woman." -- I am sorry but this alone does not confer notability, although it is an intrinsic detail. Quis separabit? 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the coverage is local, though my personal inclination is keep, I am not totally convinced. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment, Rich Farmbrough. Your feedback is very appreciated. I have added a News coverage section in the hopes of addressing your comment. Vaparedes (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lasting coverage. James500 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with comments above to the effect that this topic satisfies the relevant notability guideline. Having an article on this topic cannot in of itself "exploit the racial identities involved" as suggested below. Even if the content of the article was biased, that is something that would be dealt with by editing (ATD, BEFORE, PRESERVE, IMPERFECT etc). James500 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the further avoidance of doubt, contrary to what is suggested below, whether the killing was justified or not is irrelevant to its notability. In this respect, what constitutes lawful justification for a homicide is determined by the legislature and courts, and will reflect their POV. So I don't see how we can use that as an inclusion test. The coverage has lasted nearly two months and crossed the atlantic. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable killing; article is just to exploit the racial identities involved. Quis separabit? 00:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge summary to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2015. WP:NOTNEWS. While clearly very sad, I don't see this having any long-term notability. Her fiancé was there as a witness, and there have been no allegations that this was anything but a justified shooting. It seemed to get rolled up into the hashtag activism, but the actual shooting received very little coverage and was all within a few days of the event. This seems very much like a mental health issue and not a case of police brutality. There was a guy in my town who pulled a knife at McDonald's and came at the cops when they showed up - he got a hot lead injection as well (but no Wikipedia article). —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in the article. As James500 (talk · contribs) noted, there has been sustained coverage for two months. Not all the coverage is local. The subject has received significant coverage from reputable national publications directed towards African Americans such as the magazine Ebony and the TV channel BET. And the subject has received coverage in the Russian TV network RT (link^WebCite).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shooting of Meagan Hockaday to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: what sources cover the event in sufficient depth to meet WP:EFFECT? I see lots of sources like this, which are completely trivial (one-sentence coverage) in regard to this specific event. VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EFFECT refers to a lasting effect, not lasting significant coverage of the original event, so the length of the description of her death in the article in The Independent doesn't seem to be the issue. What seems to matter is that the shooting led to some kind of protest (which happens to have been covered at length in that article), still going on two months later. The protest itself is the lasting effect. EFFECT is not framed as a mandatory requirement, either. It does not say an event must always have a lasting effect to be notable. In fact, it says the exact opposite. James500 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it says is "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." Without significant coverage of lasting effects, any claims of lasting significance are not verifiable. Trivial listing with other shootings is evidence that this event merits a sentence in the a summary article, not a dedicated article. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (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.