Deletion of Shooting of John Crawford III

Comment: I'm not convinced this currently meets the requirements of . Passing mentions in the context of other events is not the same as "continued coverage" - had they not occurred this would (sadly) be "just another policy shooting". Nothing changes that and unless there are significant policy or legislative changes (more than just "I might introduce a bill") as a result of ''this'' event then there isn't much to go on. Its all coverage immediately following the event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: The topic of the article is notable, worthy of notice; significant and interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in General Notability  and Events . It has received extensive coverage in highly reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There are many informed avenues for developing this article, e.g. about the Dayton area police, their treatment of other individuals in this case (including John's girlfriend), contrasts by reliable sources with other cases of individuals openly carrying guns in public, and the explanations by reliable sources as to why these events were treatred differently, the Federal US investigation, the lawsuit filed by his family, the broader contexts that illuminated this case and are informed by it, etc. This event has demonstrated lasting effect, has already had widespread national impact and has been very widely covered in diverse sources (). It has frequently been re-analyzed afterwards. It has already shown /. "If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred." /CA. The event shows lasting effects, geographical scope (featured in major protests across the USA), and depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. Maintaining a general article on 2014 police-violence protests and separate articles on notable instances of police violence is appropriate for an encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENTS||WP:DIVERSE||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:N)

Comment: The article is currently labeled as a "stub". From ... ''"A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion."'' Key words being "capable of expansion". I don't see how this article could be expanded. Apart from it being a bit of a viral story due to the video clip and other black men shot by cops, I don't see how it might expand into anything greater than a |news story. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The article is problematic (noted elsewhere), but it somewhat passes . However, I'm bothered by the effort (overtly or not) to turn Wikipedia into an advocacy outlet for some group or social concern or whatever. There is a pervasive attitude that exists in these sorts of cases that there is an effort to somehow "hide the truth" and we must counter that by "getting out the truth" and editors are sometimes far too eager to weigh into discussions with that in mind. This is no way to create a encyclopedia. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)