Deletion of Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant

Comment: I was already considering bringing this to AfD myself, there have been a few of these articles pop up this year... a non-notable person was attacking another non-notable person with a knife, and got shot by police... yesterday (literally)... and all the news channels are mentioning it today... that does not imply that it is going to be noteworthy a week from now, a year from now, |ten years... as saddened as I am by a young person losing their life, the article fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: without prejudice to reassessment and, if appropriate, recreation at a later point.  Let's keep opinions of whether or not the shooting was justified out of it.  The only relevance that has is considering the public response to any subsequent decisions in the review of the officer's conduct, which is way down the line at this point.  Can we establish that this event satisfies the criterion for |lasting notability two days after the event happened, when the details are still fuzzy?  No, no we can't.  That's why |Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  Just because another black person was killed by a police officer while Derek Chauvin was on trial does not give that event notability, because notability is |not inherited.  As I say, down the line, maybe in a month or two, there might well be the lasting coverage to make the event more than news.  But at this point, it's just a footnote to 2020–2021 United States racial unrest and another entry on Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NINI)

Comment: Very relevant topic. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This doesn't even remotely fall into any of the criteria in . It is clearly not original reporting, who's who, or gossip, so I must assume it was nominated as "routine reporting," but it certainly doesn't resemble any of the examples given under that heading. Nominator may be confused by the fact that this type of event happens with embarrassing frequency, but that does not make it any less notable. If WP can keep pages on every major tropical storm and hurricane that ever happened (including non-deadly ones), it can afford to keep pages about individual BLM incidents, which are arguably of far greater cultural significance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This has been picked up by dozens of national and international news outlets in only 48 hours. Clearly meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Hardly notable that a person who was attempting to kill abother person was shot by police. Thats what we pay the police for, to protect and serve. Additionally, this is one of the worst written articles I've ever seen. Very little lasting notability on this at all. I'd say  applies here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Worries about US media et al.; if this were really as significant as some claim, it might get coverage in places further afield. https://web.archive.org/web/20210422082131/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news As of this morning (UK time) and as of right now too; The Guardian didn't have anything about this incident. In fact, they do have coverage of an incident. But https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/22/black-man-shot-and-killed-by-sheriffs-deputy-in-north-carolina it's not this one. As per my previous comment, NOTCRYSTAL is a clear concern, and those claiming GNG are not considering the "sustained" part of that guideline - if the coverage is not sustained, this is just another  police shooting (one which seems non-controversial, US clickbaitism aside, in particular
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL)

Comment: As  and  for which it is much too early to know if it will have any kind of long-lasting "national significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Passes  and is effectively a current event. I would also like to note I'm concerned about the motivations behind a couple people here who are voting to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: there's been a very large amount of coverage on this. I don't also don't find arguments along the lines of "I think people will find this shooting justified ==>  as no one will care in a week" at all convincing, that's not a determination for any of us to make, and the existing coverage already seems sufficient. &#8209;&#8209
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Extremely tragic as this case is, based on the released body-camera footage, this is ''not'' remotely close to the George Floyd murder case or any of the other cases that, justifiably, have rallied calls for reforms to the US police system. This particular case involves the police acting against an imminent knife attack where another person was in imminent danger of being fatally stabbed. There is no evidence that race, gender, or age of the people involved played any role, even if the media wants to make it so. I strongly suspect that attention to this case will fizzle once people realize that the shooting was not an example of police brutality, racism or corruption. As for this article,  is the relevant policy here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the article had a notability tag yesterday--what prompted me to remove it was seeing the video of WH Press Secretary Jen Psaki delivering remarks about it. Clearly not  coverage. I don't think  arguments are persuasive either, because it is not a biography, and BIO1E says {{tq|The general rule is to cover the event, not the person}}, which is what this article does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: per . This is an event of clear national significance and with rapidly developing coverage. I think this nomination is pre-mature and that its too soon to make a determination regarding notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: Why are we noting the police killing of a violent criminal? Clear case of  ("most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTEVERYTHING)

Comment: meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is no way that this is a  violation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Easily meets GNG. A simple Google search demonstrates this. See also   etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:IMPACT)

Comment: Clear  violation: {{tq|not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:...News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion}}. Regardless of the media seizing on this case right now to get their clicks, the details of this case and, say, the Floyd killing, are completely different. It is thus highly unlikely that this will be noteworthy even a month or two from now. , so this doesn't get to stay just because people think it will have lasting notability. The coincidence of the Chauvin trial is irrelevant (though may partially narratively explain why the media seized on this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTCRYSTAL)