Deletion of Shooting of Akai Gurley

Comment: Whether or not this meets  is, as always, something of a judgement call, but I think the recent demonstration, which received significant coverage more than a month after Gurley's death, is a good sign that this event has the |lasting effects and |persistence we require. Given that police killings of black men in the U.S. are something the media are taking an interest in, I think this is likely to continue to receive coverage. I'd certainly rather we keep an article that meets  but might take a while to conclusively satisfy EVENT than delete it only to later find it needs to be resurrected. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:GNG||WP:lasting)

Comment: per . This tragedy may have been covered in multiple media, but without a reason for notability on its own, it won't hold up and it may easily be redirected to  New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct, being one of dozens of such examples
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: No evidence has been provided to justify keeping this article. It simply does not meet the  notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether it was "covered by the international media", because we are |not a newspaper. Regardless, as my colleague said above, I do not see any evidence of this "coverage". This event has had no Wikipedia:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE|continued coverage, no |lasting impact, no coverage in |a diverse variety of sources outside the occasional wire piece, and |only affects a small area. It simply doesn't meet any of the criteria above. I like that we have people saying "also WP:GNG". It is quite clear they've not read the criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LASTING||WP:DIVERSE||WP:GEOSCOPE)