Deletion of University of Florida Taser incident

Comment: If for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of "keep" opinions are blatant examples of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: Certianly not worthy of an encyclopedia article. #NEWS. Those saying that this is a freedom of speech related event are clearly expressing their point of view. The man resisted to his arrestation and that is why he was tased
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: We should see how this pans out. Notability is probably asserted, although to what degree exactly we probably don't know. The  and  arguments are not reasons to keep or delete an article. Yes, it is |verifiable, but we need to look at its notability with regard to other issues - e.g. Freedom of speech, Homeland security, Internet memes etc. and ''then'' in a few months time, if the public decide it was a flash-in-the-pan incident, then it can be revisited at fD again. For now though, it's a weak keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:V||WP:A)

Comment: This article is highly notable it has been covered multiple times on major news outlets. This deletion attempt reeks of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: You are correct that it's a policy, however as this AFD shows there are many cases where articles fall into a grey area. I've seen far less-notable news situations become subject of articles that have been kept.  I opined to keep earlier on the basis that it is currently a major issue and for us to revisit it in a few months to determine if this stays the case. But I do feel comparing it to things like Kent State where people got killed is rather in poor state and rather offensive -- and it really hurts the argument for keeping this article. That's most likely a contributing factor for why  hasn't been activated because (again as I said in my earlier comments) there's far too much -violating and /'TLIKEIT discussion going on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL||WP:NPOV||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDON)

Comment: WP:NOT#NEWS''' was designed for news stories like this. When I first heard this story I was shocked and I thought this was a major breach of civil rights. Then I watched it on Youtube and realized this was just an obnoxious, whining student who clearly intended to get some kind of big reaction (I think "attention-whore" is the official term). Interestingly, many of the delete !votes are from editors who regularly take part in afd discussions, so they may be editors who are more familiar with deletion policy and Wikipedia policy in general than many of the keep !voters, most of whom appear to be saying "keep" based on variations of  and "it's big news!". It is insignificant news, a student does something stupid and they show the tape on TV for a few hours. So what? This is an encyclopedia, look it up on Google news if you want to read about this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: This is classic #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It's frustrating to read the article now that it's mutated into a POV screed in support of Meyer. Still, the article is (or is supposed to be, at least) about the incident and its aftermath. The fact that an irate protester crashed a town hall meeting and was removed as normal isn't notable, but since this happened in a widely reported meeting with Senator Kerry it is notable to that extent. I don't know. The fact that other users keep saying |ILIKEIT without actually defending the article is also frustrating. It's news, but it's a developing story and I'm leaning twoard seeing what happens
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: how can you assume so quickly that it does not have long-lasting encyclopedic significance? Surely we need to wait a while and see how it plays out to determine that. In the meantime, this clearly satisfies the first criterion of  -- subject of multiple, independent, reliable published reports
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: my opinions have been echoed by others above- way too many are doing the |crustall ball thing and saying "this'll be a landmark police brutality case", yet there has been no such evidence to that conclusion as of yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: If it's on so many news sites as everyone claims, why is it "censorship" not to include it in Wikipedia? We're not an #INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate collection of information, nor as Edison put it, NEWS|"Currenteventspedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This belongs on Wikinews...and it belongs on Wikipedia too. The two are not mutually exclusive as some have implied here. As for #NEWS, this is becoming one of the most widely misused policy shortcuts on AfD. The issue there is context, and the encyclopedic contexts of civil liberties vs. civil behavior have been laid out many ways above. Notability is a complete non-issue now, there never really was any reasonable doubt. For the people arguing wait and see on both sides, Notability is permanent--if the incident was a hoax, and the cops were really actors, and the taser was a prop, even that would make it more notable, not less. Notability is about whether something has been noticed by RS, not whether it meets some editor's personal opinion of whether it should be noticed. I think many of the comments, both keep and delete are not about what's best for WP readers, but are supporting the actions of the police or the taser victim. Amd I think many of the delete votes do not represent deletionism, as much as denialism. It happened; people know about it; so we can talk about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is an event in history and information is plentiful as is sources to cite. It has every potential that a wikipedia article needs. Not only that, but there is nothing in . That says that this can't be here.As long as it doesn't violate , it can stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per #NEWS, this is a NN event.  Just because lots of people watch it on YouTube does not make it notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It seems to me that they're a lot of  ballery going on, "This is going to be a landmark case for years to come" etc. versus "Everyone's going to forget this in a week" etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I don't see any indication why this is considered as an "important event" like many people in this debate is saying. Sure it has alot of news coverage, but that what wikinews was created for, not wikipedia.  is a policy. Also it can't be transwikied to wikinews as they have different licences
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: If the incident turns out to be 15 minute fame, then we can delete it later. No rush. If the incident turns out to be a notable example of police brutality, then we can keep this forever. May violates #NEWS at first instance, but I think we should give this a chance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: As of now.  This may turn into a big deal depending on what happens with the officers and the investigation.  But as of now, delete per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: At the moment, this is a major event, with plenty of non-trivial secondary coverage by major news organizations. Revisit it in 6 months and, if by then it's no longer considered major then it can be merged with the applicable articles. I have to express concern that some of the arguments above (on both sides of the issue) cross the line of  and /
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: nothing in #NEWS supports deleting an article like this.  Nothing there compels us to delete anything about an important event.  It is merely a reminder that we don't need an article on every single homicide or traffic accident
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)