Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Phillip Walters


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 02:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Phillip Walters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to be any more notable then any other police officer's death. Eeekster (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are multiple sources, including BBC News, the Evening Standard, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. He seems to meet WP:VICTIM. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some sources that aren't yet in the article:

Comment: The article doesn't say anything about the "fierce debate" about arming officres. We would need references supporting this claim. With regard to the "pathetic" punishment, I suspect that your POV. If there is ongoing media reference to the event (not just in its immediate aftermath), the first point would maybe indicate notability, but it seems that the coverage was rather time-limited. Incidently, if points 1-3 above make the article notable, they ought to mentioned in it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sad story, but does not meet the notability requirements of WP:EVENT.  For an event to be notable, it must be a precedent for another action, having in depth press coverage that is not passing and/or have widespread geographical ramifactions. This event appears to be rather isolated, with press coverage just after the event itself and in relation to the subsequent trial of the criminals.  The article is about an event, not a victim, so WP:VICTIM doesn't apply, but if it did, I believe there would still be a big question whether the victim is notable, given the passing nature of the media coverage..  Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly I would support the keeping of this article as I worked on creating it, but I would argue a few points: (1) He is the last police officer to be shot dead in London; a rare and highly-covered, notable event. (2) The case is somewhat notorious for the "pathetic" punishment handed out by the British justice system to the shooter (forensic and witness evidence supported a murder charge but the shooter was convicted only of manslaughter, and sentenced to only ten years for killing a police officer). (3) The case resulted in fierce debate over whether more, or all, police officers should be routinely armed, although the Home Secretary turned down the calls of the police commissioner and others. --TBM10 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sourcing tells me Keep. Meets WP:VICTIM. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - In accord with the principles that Wikipedia is not a news registry service and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The stories of 100% of police deaths in the line of duty will be reported in multiple newspapers. WP:NOTNEWS tells us to weigh whether the actual content of these reports is truly of lasting import or but another breathlessly reported news incident churned out as part of the commercial media's daily news cycle. This is, tragically, one death of an endless series, in no way more remarkable or socially significant than any other. My condolences to the family. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. As Carrite correctly points out, such deaths will continue to occur. If this still gets significant coverage in 6 months we can revisit. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This it not a current event, it happened 16 years ago. The sources in the article, and the ones I've listed at the top of this discussion, span that period of time and discuss the implications of this particular death. This isn't a series of routine announcements immediately following a death. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The time between page creation and nomination here is extremely short – just over an hour. Given that there do seem to be political ramifications on a number of fronts, not all of them currently discussed in the article or even on this page, I'd prefer to see how the article develops and would suggest that the AfD be put on ice for a while. Similar pages already exist, so I see no harm in giving this one some time. BlueThird (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNCIVIL. By so simplistically suggesting that I think the article should be kept indefinitely, just as it is, you're taking my arguments out of context. It potentially touches on a number of important areas in the wider world: the police response to domestic violence, to what extent the British police should be armed, immigration and sentencing policy, political hypocrisy, the effect the shooting had on an election campaign, and media reporting of all those. Obviously skilled and considered editing will be required to do justice to all of that, and in my opinion that's more likely if the article is given some time in front of a broad audience. BlueThird (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * this article should be assessed on its merits not on the basis of other articles existing. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure it will be. But as I pointed out and you ignored, it was nominated just over an hour after it was created. That's too soon. BlueThird (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable perspective and I generally agree with it. However, this isn't an issue of an article which is being run through the grinder due to inadequate sourcing — which may have been forthcoming if only the creator were given a reasonable length of time. This is pretty much a question of consensus regarding application of the principle of NOTNEWS to police deaths. Do multiple sources trump NOTNEWS in police deaths? That's the issue — yeah or nay? That's instantly debatable at the moment of article creation. Letting the article age for a week or a month or a year won't change that fundamental issue. Carrite (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think multiple high-quality sources, persisting over 15 years and discussing the impact of this particular death, make this a notable subject per WP:VICTIM. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:17, 24 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.