Talk:Murder of Austin Metcalf

Race in first sentence

@Mikewem:

I added the races of Metcalf and Anthony to the first sentence of the article. Mikewem reversed this saying: It has not been established in these refs, or any RS, or the Talk page, that race is central to the notability of this killing".

So, I would like to make an argument as to why the races should be included. I'm not familiar with any polices that specifically refer to this matter, but MOS:ETHNICITY states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Now, this is related to biographies, but I think the principle extends here. Furthermore, this principle is a norm across article similar to this. See Murder of George Floyd, Killing of Jordan Neely, Killing of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Breonna Taylor, etc. And I think this has been hashed over across a number of these articles, with decisions often being determined by due weight placed on race by reliable sources. Based on this guideline, we should include mention in the lead (or first sentence) that Metcalf is white and Anthony is black if their races/ethnicities are relevant to the notability of the event. I contend that race is relevant to the notability of this incident, and thus, the races of Metcalf and Anthony should be included.

It is relevant because race has been underscored by reliable sources in coverage of this case. Here I will list sourcing:

• People : Anthony is Black, while Metcalf was White (prominantly listed under 'Need to Know' section)
• Kera (NPR for North Texas): The case has drawn national attention and deep division on social media, largely over the case’s racial undertones. Anthony is Black and Metcalf was white. (lists race + establishes race as related to notability)
• Texas Public Radio: Anthony, who is Black, is accused of fatally stabbing Austin Metcalf, who was white, during a Frisco track meet last year AND The case has gained national attention and fueled racial tensions online. (race of them mentioned prominently in the article towards the beginning)
• Kera: The alleged killing of a white teenager by a Black teen at a Frisco track meet last year drew national attention and online sparring over the role of race in the attack. (first sentence, prominance, and lists races) AND The case attracted national attention over issues of race (race is part of attention/notability of case)
• CNN: The death last year quickly drew wide attention, in part because of social media posts that amplified the case in racial terms. Anthony, now 19, is Black, while the Metcalf was white. (lists race + establishes race as related to notiability)

This is sufficient for establishing that race is relevant to the notability, and this is how similarly situated articles have determined to include race in the lead. I think it is important to note that it need not be estabished that race caused the incident in the actual world. All that matter is that it is relevant to why this has been given reliable source attention. It its very possible that this event would not be deemed notable or have been covered in reliable sources if the racial component was not in play. R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• People: it’s in the context of a black defendant facing an all white jury, which is a notable phenomenon throughout American history, though not central to the topic of this article, the Killing of Austin Metcalf
• Kera: for the sake of Wikipedia, social media posts are not reliable sources and therefore cannot establish notability
• TPR: same issue as previous 2. This article is about the jury’s racial makeup, as evidenced by the first sentence, After three days, attorneys in Collin County selected 12 jurors and six alternates for the murder trial of Karmelo Anthony. None of them are Black.
• Kera 2: And the arrest report doesn’t mention witness statements about race being a factor. But thousands online still assume otherwise. Wikipedia does not care about what people online assume when that reaction is divorced from the facts of a case. We can report what RS say about the online reaction, but we can’t write about the online reaction in an WP:UNDUE way in our article. The online reaction doesn’t get to dictate what the facts of the case are.
• CNN: same issue as the other sources that attribute the claim of racialization of the case solely to anonymous online commentators.

No source says race is a defining reason that this story got attention, or claims that it would not have gotten attention but for race.

No source says race is seen as relevant to anyone involved in the case (besides the anonymous online commentators, who are, by definition, not involved in the case). And sources state that multiple parties involved in the case explicitly said race is not relevant. Mikewem (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Race is a factor in the reactions to the case. As well as the harrassment campaign against Karmelo Anthony, his family, and to a lesser extent Austin Metcalf's family.

Metcalfs father said he didn't want his son's image used to promote "Hate", what kind of hate would he be referring to if he wasn't referring to anti-black racism? ~2026-33385-47 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep. And the reactions are covered in Killing of Austin Metcalf#Protest Mikewem (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack here. Multiple parties saying race does not matter is not relevant in and of itself to this question because people like Metcalf's father are not reliable sources detailing this event. Also, saying no one besides online commentators have said race matters is not true. The judge ruled yesterday against the prosecution that this was a "race-neutral" case that need not have a diverse jury panel, albeit he later allowed those black jurors to be struck. (source). So, no, race has not been dismissed by all parties in this case, namely the literal trial judge. This also explains why RS feel the need to report the absence of black jurors in this case. The race of jurors typically is not given attention unless race is relevant in some sense to the case. And that does not mean that race had to be the reason Anthony stabbed Metcalf, just as it does not have to be the reason that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely for race to be relevant to that case. But, again, these people (father, cops, judges, etc) contary to what you asserted, do not determine if race is relevant in this case. Reliable sources and RS narratives do.

Wikipedia should cover this event in a way that reflects how reliable sources do. You say: "No source says race is a defining reason that this story got attention, or claims that it would not have gotten attention but for race." Uh... yea they do and I think you know that. Firstly, a public reaction can make something notable, and this what these have suggested as critical to the attention (ergo notability) of this case. Also, People and TPR strictly mention their race independent of disucssion of the online reaction. Furthermore, these sources are not clearly conflating the "national attention" of the case with the online reaction.

All of these sources cover this event acknowledging the racial undertones in the reaction. This is relevant probably in the second paragraph of the lead. I think a fair compromise is to omit race from the first sentence of the lead and first paragraph, while mentioning their races in the second paragraph of the lead while discussing the public reaction. I think this is more than fair and is more conservative than how this is typically treated in articles similar to this. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The more I learn about this, the more I am inclined to think that Anthony is not a public figure and much of this article fails WP:BLPCRIME.

Anyway, if you want to claim that the judge ruled that race is relevant, then we need a source that says plainly that the judge ruled that race is relevant. (Your source does not do that) Mikewem (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The applicability of WP:BLPCRIME was the subject of a deeply conflicted RFC (the closure of which was then deeply disputed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

From just a passing glance at the (2?) rfcs, I am more in the lane of thinking that this question is not settled (and of course, consensus can change) Mikewem (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The naming of Anthony and BLPCRIME is settled consensus already. Mikewem, you have not addressed anything I've said with respect to RS mattering (not those involved), the fact that race is discussed disconnected from the public reaction, nor the compromise I offered. Also, your demands are unreasonable. Reliable sources do no write to appease Wikipedia editors. The CBS source says what it says. It plainy says an objection to viewing the case as race neutral was overruled. Likewise we cannot expect a news article to say somethign like "We would have not wrote this article if it wasn't for the racial dynamic giving it notoriety". We have to use common sense when contextualizing this situation. We have multiple sources connecting the attention of this case to the racial dyanmic and reactions on race. That is is sufficient for drawing connection between the notability of this event and the racial component. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The list you presented all say race was invoked by the anonymous public. We do not attribute claims to the anonymous public on Wikipedia. If race is central to the facts of the killing, then there should be RSs that say so without attributing solely to the anonymous public.

It looks to me like you read a line that says the judge overruled an objection (the line does not state the reason for the overrule) and then concluded that meant the judge ruled that it is not race-neutral. There is not enough information presented by the article to conclude that the judge ruled it was not race-neutral. It’s either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to make that conclusion. If there is a source that gets into the judge’s reason for the overrule, then that would probably be useful to have.

Possibly (or possibly not) illustrative analogy: If a student says “I hate cats”, and a teacher says, “you’re not allowed to say that in my class”, that is not proof that the teacher loves cats. To conclude that this exchange proves the teacher loves cats would be SYNTH. Mikewem (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The People source talks about race (listing it as a 'must know') and does not mention the online reaction in any portion of the article. TPR lists race and does not write about the online reaction until 2 more paragraphs down the article, disjointed from the initial mention of race. It is not reflective of reality to suggest those two only mention race in connection to online reaction/anonymous sources. The fact is multiple reliable sources place emphasis on race in the reporting of this story, both connected and disconnected from the online reaction. Furthermore, your dismissal of the public reaction to an event, as evidence to deam it as racial, is peculiar. It is possible that an event could not be race-based (in reality or in the eyes of competent authorities) but still have racial undertones in the eyes of the public that are worth mentioning if prescribed weight by reliable sourcing. I think that is many of these types of killings, including this one. The judge's ruling, though important, is not a make-or-break because involved parties do not constitue best sources in this instance. So overly laboring on it is a red herring in this context. Also, what claim is being attributed to the anonymous public? I am not proposing a claim that requires attribution to the anonymous public. R. G. Checkers ^talk 04:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The claim, what I would characterize as a contentious claim, is that race had a role in the attack. It may have. But in order to write this article in a way that reflects that presumption, we would need (in my view) something stronger than “people online are saying”.

WP:PEOPLEMAG says the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.

I think we would benefit from additional sources. Any expert, ideally more than one, discussing the possibility of racial undertones of the killing in a RS would likely do it. Or if something comes out in testimony. Mikewem (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I would agree that the claim "race had a role in the attack" is contentious and is not supported by reliable sourcing, but this is not the claim that is being proposed or what you reverted. You reverted adding referent to the races in the first sentence that was being contextualized by the second paragraph (which you also largely removed) that stated race was the focus of much of the public reaction. Indicating race and then contextualizing with "national attention" or online reaction is essentially what these reliale sources are doing at the very least, as you know. In the reverted text, there is no claim being put forth beyond an implicationn that race has been deemed significant in the reporting the event by reliable sources. It can be important for a number of reasons, and it is not problematic if that reason is race was important to how the event was reacted to by the public (rather than part of the actual attack). For example, in the Neely case there is no hard evidence that race played a role in the attack (I mean the dude was acquitted), but the reaction, largely of the public and partisan politicians, is what makes the case racially charged, and thus, mentioning race in first sentence and elsewhere is due. Similar principle here. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY says Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

If race had a role in the attack, then race would be relevant to the notability of the Killing of Austin Metcalf and should be in the lead. If race did not have a role in the attack, then it would not be relevant to the notability of the subject and should not be in the lead.

It looks to me like the Neely article is in violation of ETHNICITY and should probably be changed to conform to our manual. Mikewem (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, after a quick glance at the Neely archives, I see that someone presented this source, where an expert discusses the racial undertones of the killing. Earlier I said Any expert, ideally more than one, discussing the possibility of racial undertones of the killing in a RS would likely do it. and I meant it. I’m not able to find a source like that for this case. If anyone can, and presents it here, then a source like that would likely satisfy ETHNICITY for this page, in the view of this one editor. Mikewem (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That's long since been settled and race is plainly relevant in this case. It's still not clear what the point of all this is other than an opportunity to browbeat. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's consider some examples:

• Shooting of Ralph Yarl - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Murder of Renisha McBride - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Killing of Jordan Neely - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Murder of George Floyd - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Murder of Sonya Massey - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor

They're easy enough to find, just go to the Black Lives Matter infobox, expand it, find the "cases protested" since in every single case there is no evidence race was a contributing factor to the homicide. Now lets do the others

• Killing of Iryna Zarutska - race is not mentioned in the lead, despite her accused killer being observed by witnesses as muttering "I got that White girl"
• Shooting of Abby Zwerner - no mention of race in the lead
• Killing of Debrina Kawam - no mention or race in the lead

They're harder to find because there is no organized group of agitators rioting when Whites are murdered, so we don't even have articles for Courtney Drysdale, Matthew Milner, Caitlin Stup, Kinsley White, Bethany MaGee, Harvey Muklebust...

Two conclusions can be drawn then:

1. The killing of Whites by blacks is presumed non-notable, while the killing of blacks by Whites is presumed notable
2. The crime of murder against Whites is presumed to be color blind, while the crime of murder against blacks is presumed to be racially motivated. It's all pretty basic really. --Guiltymamba (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed this article was actually nominated for deletion, proving just how non-notable the murder of Whites is considered. The race of the murder victim and his killer both belong in the lead, I don't know why it keeps getting removed. Put it back. --Guiltymamba (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the races should be mentioned in the first sentence, but anywhere else in the lead is fine. The last sentence mentioning race (...viral social media posts emphasized the races of ...) would the best place for it, since readers will wonder what the races of the victim and perp were/are. Some1 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue with it not being in the first sentence is other killing/murders like this do mention it in the first sentence. So it makes the treatment of race in this article inconsistent with that of other articles, which can create an appearance of double standards and bias that should be avoided. It’s that and there is a reality that this incident would almost certainly lack notability if it wasn’t for race, so their race’s are very noteworthy. Reliable sources like, NYT, when opening articles about this case start with race. Why should wiki be different? Also, I think there is a practical reason to have it in the first sentence. I’ve yet to find a way to present their races non-awkwardly in the second paragraph of the lead. It think the parentheses scheme is clunky and doesn’t flow well. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You bring up good points; I don't have any strong opinion on this (whether the race should be mentioned in the first sentence) either way. Some1 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It can be handled in the second paragraph with "... viral social media posts emphasized that the perpetrator was Black and that the victim was White."

What portion of the other pages you are looking at have race as vital to the murder (i.e., someone killed for their race) rather than being vital to the reaction? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Does this article require a copyrighted yearbook photo?

Rationale for fair use is presented at File:Austin Metcalf(3).jpg#mw-jump-to-license. Does that pass the test? Mikewem (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, at the very least the explanation they gave is inaccurate. "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article". This is not a biographical article, it is an article on an event. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to correct that, Nat. FrodoMarsh (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You already had by the time I read this. Having said that, I'm not sure it meets the claimed NFCC section, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I'm not sure how his looks are important to an article beyond noting that he's white, which can be sufficiently done in text. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That part did catch my eye too. In my view, the picture does not illustrate the topic of the article (which is an event, not a bio). Mikewem (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue the photo illustrates the topic. Metcalf's identity isn't incidental, it's part of why the event drew coverage like it did, and seeing him adds understanding of the subject in a way that text doesn't. I'll fix the biographical wording in the rationale now. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m not fully following. What does the yearbook photo have to do with why the event drew coverage? Mikewem (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, it's not that specific photo that drove coverage but the event's significance is tied to Metcalf as a specific person, not an anonymous victim, and a photo is how the article conveys that to a reader in a way that text can't. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Still bearing in mind that this is not a bio article, from what I’ve seen in the refs on this page, he’s noted as a specific person for having a 4.0, being an athlete, and having a twin. I don’t think the yearbook photo illustrates any of that. Mikewem (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

He was also killed by someone, the entire point of the article. I'm not hearing any good reason to exclude the photo. FrodoMarsh (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted photo to which we do not have a license. That's a good reason to exclude a photo. What we're lacking is a good reason to include it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That is your opinion. A good reason is to contexualize an article about the murder of someone but you both bizarrely skim over it. FrodoMarsh (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You haven’t answered how the yearbook photo illustrates that he was murdered or how it contextualizes his murder. If the only reason for the photo is to memorialize him, I would recommend reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mikewem (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I have but you differ in opinion, which is fine. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this the right forum to decide this? I feel as long as the photograph remains on wikipedia, there is no good reason to not use it here. If you don't want it, propose it for deletion. Otherwise, I see no reason to remove it. Metcalf is clearly relevant and central to the case, and it is not uncommon for "Killing of__" articles to have a picture of the deceased party in the infobox with fair use rationale. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that a photo is stored on Wikipedia is not sufficient for any individual usage; we certainly have free use photos for some articles that would not be allowed on others; WP:FAIRUSE talks of such things as an image of a stamp that could be used when talking about the stamp but not when talking about the person depicted on the stamp. As to whether we can decide this here, we could absolutely decide not to use it here, and its lack of use here could then be the reason to delete the photo altogether. As this is a copyright matter, we should keep the photo out until there is consensus found for including it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I do have concerns similar to the prior image that got deleted. First, the source is technically just "ABC 10" without clarifying what ABC 10 is. ABC10 suggests up to nine possibilities with one being a station that was ABC affiliated in 2025. It would be nice to know which ABC station at the least. The second concern is if this is confirmed to be Austin and not Hunter as news reports have confused the two. (See #Wikipedia:Help desk#Error to Killing of Austin Metcalf page above for more on that.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That is absolutely Austin ~2026-34318-36 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope so as, again, we just deleted an image because it was Hunter's photo in the infobox and it wasn't realized until recently as news reports were also using the wrong photo. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: This is resolved below. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This link you mean?: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 83#Error to Killing of Austin Metcalf page. George Ho (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to the now archived discussion on this talk page, Talk:Murder of Austin Metcalf/Archive 3#Wikipedia:Help desk#Error to Killing of Austin Metcalf page, which also linked to the help desk discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It provides a heck of a lot more context than a pin on a map. That choice seems unusual compared to other articles. ~2026-34318-36 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of Murder/Killing of .... articles include non-free images of the victims in the infoboxes. Murder of Ahmaud Arbery has a non-free image in the infobox, for example. Some1 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• (1) I think what it comes down to is these articles commonly do have these photos, and (2) I think if we allow fair use for deceased bios (which we do) there is no meaningful difference in encyclopedic value between that situtation and this one. Metcalf's name is in the title and this concerns his death. So, fair use is justified in this situation. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  That we may have improperly used it in other articles does not mean that such use here is justified. Murder of Ahmaud Arbery is being held up as an example, but searching it's talk page archives for "fair use" finds nothing, so it looks like the question has never been addressed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  What's the next step? An RfC? A wider (more general) discussion on a different page regarding fair use images of deceased victims on the article about their death? Some1 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think a wider discussion would be good (this is the sort of thing where a decision that applies as a general case is better than just a specific case), but I'm trying to figure out the right place. There's a Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard, but it's specifically for text and it's more a place to alert admins of things that need fixing than it is a discussion joint. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking WT:NFC. Some1 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think that would be the appropriate forum R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, I started a discussion at WT:NFC: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content § Fair use image of the deceased victim in 'Murder/Killing of ...' articles. Feel free to comment there; I'm also curious to see how uninvolved editors respond. Some1 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Found out about this thread from WT:NFC. Just now realized that the non-free image is orphaned. Well, a wider discussion was suggested. Thus, I brainstormed a potential RFC discussion on the whole general matter. Meanwhile, personally, the image should've remained in the article but then been taken to WP:FFD instead of orphaned or whatever. But... dunno what you guys think about the yearbook photo itself other than... how divisive you guys have been. George Ho (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

the image should've remained in the article but then been taken to WP:FFD I agree with this. Seems like NatGertler and Mikewem are the only two opposing the inclusion of the image, while at least four other editors support the inclusion. I'll re-add the image to the article. Please nominate the image for deletion at WP:FFD if you still believe there are copyright issues with the image. Some1 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that I am kinda opposed as I have concerns that it might not be Austin and that the sourcing needs more detail. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The yearbook photo is Austin Metcalf (not his twin). Source here: https://www.fox13news.com/news/train-attack-video-austin-metcalf-killing Some1 (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. It does say that the image was provided to Fox 13 by his father. We did have issues from other news articles, but I will try to trust that this is accurate. Thank you for posting this link. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Here are some mainstream sources using the same image: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/03/us/17-year-old-fatally-stabbed-student-texas and https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/twin-brother-posthumous-diploma-austin-metcalf-frisco-graduation/. The same school photo shows up in a picture frame in this CBS interview with this father: Timestamp: 00:56 Some1 (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you again. Given this, especially the interview, I will say that I am completely satisfied that there is no issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2026

I feel this is a biased wiki. It's based off two kids and I feel it wouldn't be here if he wasn't a black teen. What Im imposing is also based on regards to him not having a black juror. Where he was only granted white jurors. And shortly after this gets put on wiki. These is not the meaning of Wikipedia. ~2026-34291-53 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvanTech10 (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Where he was only granted white jurors. And shortly after this gets put on wiki. Just to clear this up, this article has existed since April 16th of last year or two weeks after the incident. The article already went up for deletion once last year. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Austin Metcalf) Those that voted to keep the article did so because of coverage by reliable sources, analysis and commentary in those sources, and coverage of additional events after the incident. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel... Nobody cares. ~2026-34176-61 (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There were three Asians on the jury. Asians are considered non-white by default in the United States. Interestingly enough, the term 'Asian' is both a geographic AND specific race-term in the US. So in a true sense, the jury was not 'all-white.' ~2026-35152-75 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Karmelo Anthony photo

Why is there no photo of the murderer included in the article? Surely that's equally as important to knowing what the victim looked like ~2026-31674-64 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:NFCCP is that we try to only include as few non-free images as possible, specifically 3a: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I have already added the free public record mugshot to the commons but someone wants to remove it, if you want to add in your thoughts about whether it should be included on wikipedia as a whole and on this page, please contribute to the talk https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karmelo_Anthony.png ~~~ Bgrus22 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind if we include it or not, but I did believe that there was a priority for having Austin's photo. (It seems that I did a bad job with explaining things.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is the race stated?

Clearly this is going to create controversy. I don’t think it’s necessary to say what race each person was. So ignorant to say this, given the current status of the world. Anyone can see this if they look up the case. ~2026-34383-40 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It does run counter to the guideline MOS:ETHNICITY to present the races in the lead in this article. You can read through #Race in first sentence to find the emerging consensus that we should ignore that guideline for this article. Mikewem (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Also discussed at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 3#Races and Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 2#Blackness Mikewem (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Because it's notable.(Redacted) ~2026-34610-48 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2026

Under the Incident section, replace this sentence:

Anthony, who had entered Memorial's tent, was told to move out of the tent by Hunter Metcalf, Austin's twin brother.

With this:

Anthony, who had entered Memorial's tent, was told multiple times by several Memorial teammates including Hunter Metcalf, Austin's twin brother, to move out of the tent. Anthony refused. Mcglsr2 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

NY Post is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. R. G. Checkers ^talk 20:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@R. G. Checkers: Would something like this work using CBS News Texas as a source? I will suggest alternative sentences in case that helps:

• "Witnesses claimed that Anthony, who had entered Memorial's tent, was told up to 15 times by various Memorial teammates including Hunter Metcalf, Austin's twin brother, to move out of the tent. Anthony refused."
• "Witnesses claimed in court that after Anthony had entered Memorial's tent, he was told around a dozen times to leave by various members of Memorial's team, including by Austin's twin brother, Hunter Metcalf. Austin then confronted Anthony after Anthony remained in the tent.

(Feel free to mix and match if the source works out.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Then please use this source: https://abcnews.com/US/karmelo-anthony-murder-trial-verdict-reached-texas-track/story?id=133687338

ABC News, which is considered a generally reliable source on Wikipedia; in the article is the text "One witness testified that Anthony was asked to leave the tent about 15 times" which is based on witness testimony.

Thanks! Mcglsr2 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

References

edit request

−

[[Jake Lang]], a [[far-right]] activist, rallied with supporters outside of the courthouse and called for Anthony to be "[[Lynching|lynched]]".

+

[[Jake Lang]], a [[far-right]] activist, rallied with supporters outside of the courthouse and called for Anthony to be "[[Lynching in the United States|lynched]]".

MOS:SPECIFICLINK ~2026-25675-74 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The only concerns I have would be MOS:EASTEREGG and MOS:MORELINKWORDS. Going to leave this up for additional input as I am unsure if this should be done or should not be done without different wording. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:EGG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Karmelo Anthony photo

Now that Karmelo Anthony is a convicted murderer, we can post it's photo and the photo I think is free use since it's produced by the government. --Guiltymamba (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t believe photos by the State of Texas are free. They are copyrighted. If a mugshot of Anthony is to he included, it would have to be justified on fair use grounds. R. G. Checkers ^talk 07:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"I think is free use since it's produced by the government" No it's not. The photos are produced by the Texas government, not the federal government Trade (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2026

It is wrong to say that he was sentenced to 35 years “by a jury.” A judge sentences defendants in the United States, not a jury. A jury merely convicts or acquits. The “by a jury” should be removed when discussing the prison sentence. ~2026-34905-34 (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the source, the jury decided the sentence. In Texas, a defendant can choose to be sentenced by the jury. Danski454 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Who?

Jeff Metcalf referred to Anthony as a "watermelon felon"... Who is Jeff Metcalf? The article never establishes his relationship to the subject of the article anywhere. It really needs a thorough proofreading. -- Veggies (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Anthony in Wallace Pack Unit.

His current incarceration is Wallace Pack Unit.

• https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/InmateSearch/viewDetail.action?sid=21558442

~2026-18951-73 (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)