Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Daniel Cooper


 * 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   delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Daniel Cooper

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTNEWS, doesn't appear to be any more notable then any other police officer's death C T J F 8 3  21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A police officer's death in the line of duty is, in itself, notable. --TBM10 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? It's probably a daily occurrence somewhere in the world. Are you saying we need an article on every Mexican cop killed by drug gangs, or every Afghanistan/Iraqi/Irani, etc cop killed by insurgent/terrorist/rebel violence? Why would this British cop be any more notable then any of those? C T J F 8 3  21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not saying that. The death of a police officer in the United Kingdom is rare and, especially when in circumstances such as this one was, notable. The article is well-presented and sufficiently-cited (I can present more if needed) and no harm is being caused by its existence. Ironic that WP encourages users to contribute, but within minutes of adding an acceptable article someone wants to delete it. --TBM10 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you said, "A police officer's death in the line of duty is, in itself, notable."...not, a UK officer's death is in itself notable. You got a source saying a cops death in the UK is rare? C T J F 8 3  12:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. The death of a police officer in the UK is unusual and has therefore attracted this level of coverage (e.g. the two separate cited BBC articles). RichardOSmith (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source it's rare? C T J F 8 3  12:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * , but it's a distraction from my argument which was that there is sufficient coverage of the event to support an article, per the GNG. I assert that this is likely to be because of its relative rarity, but frankly it doesn't matter what the reason is - the coverage is still there. BTW - my initial reaction on seeing this AfD was that it violates WP:MEMORIAL as others below are suggesting, and the GNG explicitly states that things which violate WP:NOT (which includes that) may well not get their own articles, so I was minded to agree with your nomination. But if you look closely at WP:MEMORIAL, it says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" (my bolding). It is clear to me that the intent behind WP:MEMORIAL is only to dissuade editors from creating articles about non-notable loved ones and it explicitly limits its scope to people who do not satisfy general notability requirements. But this subject is notable, as measured by the coverage in reliable sources, so WP:MEMORIAL does not apply. Consequently my recommendation was, and remains, keep. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT section 2.9 it reads like a newspaper obituaries and i'm not sure it could be presented in another light. (Ke5crz (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am sorry for his family. While tragic, this was an accident, and such incidents are the bane of police officer's lives, and often causes their deaths.  This is a run of the mill yet sad death of a cop on duty.  We can't be a memorial for every deceased officer.  If it was a murder, or connected with an ongoing reform, or resulted from some other major crime, then it would be significant and should get such coverage.  Of course, every cop's death gets on the news, such stories are newsworthy.  However, we are not a newsjournal.  Protecting the public is inherently dangerous.  I know how it is, and empathize; several of my relatives and students have been or are police or peace officers. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Bearian... Cheers! Feedintm  ( talk ) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOT NEWS. If that is a meaningful concept at all, this is an excellent example of why we need it. This is in no possible sense encyclopedic material. Almost certainly would not even be notable if he had been killed in a crime, but certainly not in an accident.    DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this has been covered by (mostly local) reliable sources, but it is routine news reporting. It's sad, but there's no enduring notability.-- Beloved Freak  21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst an uncommon occurrence, the reporting done it is routine and perfunctory, and the event is not likely to have enduring impact. Compare, for instance, the lack of a similar article on the death of Ronan Kerr, killed shortly beforehand in a terrorist incident, which was much more widely reported. GRAPPLE   X  21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.