Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Dexter Reed

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Dexter Reed

Killing of Dexter Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable event Jax 0677 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This has been widely reported in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply -
    WP:NOTNEWS. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

"Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", per

WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Police, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A brief burst of news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a database of murders or other news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The surge of coverage occurred weeks after the event. There are sources that analyse the event as well. And there are still sources published as recently as 2 hours ago, definitely sustained coverage. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red pilled media has been all over this because the left has been asking the same stupid question: "how can police justify nearly 100 shots, when all Reed did was empty his clip at a cop first?" Both sides will milk this for a long time. (Grady Judd said, "That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more".) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plenty of sources. Would meet
  WP:GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Seems to be widely reported. Inexpiable (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WE&H; sources are still coming in.
  Queen of ♡ | speak 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: many reliable sources and significant in-depth coverage FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2024 (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.