Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American police officers killed in the line of duty


 * 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. Clear consensus that the list is appropriate though the content as it stands has issues for editors to resolve. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

List of American police officers killed in the line of duty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not have selection criteria. In effect, it aims to be a complete list of the tens of thousands of American police officers killed since 1776. Several problems are obvious. Such a list would be utterly useless unless there were some way of guaranteeing that it were 100% complete. Failing that, it is an indiscriminate list of some of the officers killed. Next, we have several terms wanting for definitions. We do not know what a "police officer" is (look into it, it's a far more complicated question than you might guess). We do not have a definition for "killed in the line of duty". Does suicide during duty hours count? How about off hours but acting in an official capacity? Sources are certainly a problem. The most widely used source is the "Officer Down Memorial Page" which specifically excludes/includes some odd causes. In their opinion, deaths caused by an illness which may have been exacerbated by duty may count as being killed in the line of duty (even if the connection is only assumed and the death is after retirement). Others are excluded, based on the pages opinions of what should be memorialized. (The source is, after all, a memorial site. Wikipedia is not.) Due to the lack of functional selection criteria, the list is unavoidably affected by several types of bias. Recentism is clear, as the page lists roughly 150 killings from 1776 to 2009 and roughly that many per year in 2015, while displaying a graph indicating roughly 300 killed in 1920. In addition to basically copying whatever the ODMP lists, we include any death that someone bothers to add. (Please note the talk page archive is currently messed up in some way that I cannot figure out, hiding various attempts to restructure the list in various ways: defining terms, limiting to deaths in blue-link notable events, etc.
 * Note: copied from User talk:SummerPhDv2.0 because this page title is blacklisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Incomplete lists are fine. List of numbers is a good example. The selection criteria are not vague: every law enforcement death is officially recognized as either in the line of duty or not. It's one or the other. Surmountable issues are not a valid reason for deletion. So whatever problems may exist with the sources can be fixed. If the current content is too recent, that can be fixed. If it grows too large, that can be fixed by spawning sub-lists. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." But this isn't about creating an article on every officer death. Many things in WP:NOT deal with not creating separate artices on a thing, which can be misunderstood to mean whole classes of content can't appear within an article or list. That's not what it means.WP:CSC in the Categories, lists, and navigation templates guidelines explains that some list member are all notable with their own article, but other lists are simply members of a group, in themselves not notable enough for a stand-alone article.If poorly sourced entries are being added, well, clean them up. It's not like every other list on Wikipedia doesn't suffer the same maintenance problem. That goes with the territory.The talk archive issue is now fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * List of numbers, along with hundreds of thousands of other articles, exists. It isn't perfect and should not be used as an indication of what other articles should aspire to. Instead, we should edit articles based on our policies and guidelines.
 * This article will always fall into one of two categories: 1) An indiscriminate selection of names from a list of tens of thousands (that's what it is now) or 2) A complete/mostly complete list of tens of thousands of names. In either case, the list will be of no encyclopedic5 value. (Limiting the list to blue-link notable individuals would answer this question, but delete 99.5%+ of the list.)
 * Without selection criteria, we might just as well have a [[List of people from New York City that includes notable individuals and a few thousand others whose grandchild or niece added them, citing the "Linderhoff Funeral Home Memorial Page". (Limiting the list to cases where reliable sources directly state the individual was an "American police officer" and was "killed in the line of duty" would answer this, but delete 99.9% of the list.)
 * We do not have and cannot create unambiguous, objective selection criteria. Is a security contractor working for the U.S. in Afghanistan an "American police officer"? Does their citizenship matter? Do their job responsibilities matter? If a cop dies while driving under the influence on the way from lunch to the station, were they "killed in the line of duty"? If they commit suicide were they "killed"? Is any thing that happens during hours "in the line of duty"? Do you have sources for all of those answers or are your answers OR?
 * I understand the desire to memorialize and celebrate, but we simply do not have and cannot create valid selection criteria and unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source saying an overseas security contractor is an American police officer? If you do, great. I've never seen a security contractor referred to that way. You can raise all kinds of rhetorical quibbles about whether the sky is blue, or is it really azure, or teal, but in the end, if our sources are calling it blue, then blue it is. If you want to contest an entry, then contest it. These are resolvable verifiablity issues.Surmountable problems are irrelevant AfD. Deletion is not cleanup. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The need to discuss individual cases is a sign we do not have unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria. Law enforcement in the United States applies the term to a wide variety of jobs: various Departments of Correction workers, game wardens, various revenue agents, private security guards, various public safety offices, various port authorities, various private special-purpose district agencies, etc. Saying we can simply argue each of the tens of thousands of cases out on the talk page does not mean we have a workaround for not having unambiguous, objective inclusion and selection criteria. We could have a "List of obnoxious characters in film", add whomever we want and "discuss" any we disagree about. Calling the rent-a-cop at the local mall a "police officer" is in no way equivalent to saying the sky is blue.
 * If we had a list for each year of 50% of the "police" (using a definition we make up) "killed on duty" (again, we'll make up the definitions), we'd have over 200 lists of several hundred names each. Please explain how any one of those lists would be more encyclopedic than a "List of randomly selected entrees at U.S. diners". I can source that 103.287 is a number. Should I add it to "List of numbers"? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single list on Wikipedia has a need to discuss individual entries. The only way to decide if an entry belongs or not is to collaborate with others and find a consensus that it is well sourced and meets the list criteria. This fact doesn't in any way give us a reason to delete any list. The assertion that we "make up" a definition for police or line of duty is as facile as saying we have made up the definition of "number" or "planet". Our sources gave us those definitions. Entries are put on lists of planets or lists of numbers or a List of people killed in duels because the sources tell us the definitions of things. A sophist could question the definition of "people" and "killed" and "duel" and ultimately conclude that no term is definable and no knowledge is knowable. But we are editing an encyclopedia, not having a class discussion in Philosophy 101. If there is a minority view on the definition of "planet" or "police" or any term, WP:WEIGHT gives us Wikipedia's approach to such dissenting views.Once again, if you want to go to the list talk page and work with other editors to reach a consensus on how we should define "American" or "police" or "line of duty", that would be a constructive part of building an encyclopedia. Improving those definitions or list criteria is a surmountable problem, not a reason to delete. But sitting here asserting these cannot be defined without having ever tried is not an argument to delete anything.If there were a talk page discussion on these criteria, and it was unresolved, and then the all of the standard dispute resolution options had been tried, and after all that, it was impossible to achieve consensus, that might be an argument to delete the list. I would expect that enough editors could agree on criteria that this will not happen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Every single list on Wikipedia has a need to discuss individual entries"? Where did we discuss including the tens of thousands of people we apparently could have included at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? Personally, I'm glad RBG squeaked by in the RfC on that one. Meanwhile, we have the on-going debate (perpetuated by James Buchanan's fanboys) that we should include Cuba in List of states and territories of the United States, "just because".
 * No, of course we don't have to discuss individual entries at every single list. With unambiguous, objective inclusion and selection criteria there is far less need for discussion. With unresolvably ambiguous includsion criteria (the game warden had a heart attack while climbing a hill...) and absolutely no selection criteria, we might just as well have "List of American police officers". After all, if we can simply break this one down (once we have even 1% of the possible entries) into shorter lists of thousands of names, we can do the same with that one. Why not? Yeah, we're supposed to have selection and inclusion criteria, but we can simply "discuss" what belongs in "List of yucky vegetables" and which people to include in "List of randomly selected people from New York City". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The topic is a notable one in the U.S., and many sources should be readily available (at least within the last century). To me the reasons provided seem like reasons to refine the criteria, rather than deleting the article. The first U.S. police force was established in 1838, so it doesn't seem necessary to go all the way back to 1776. Praemonitus (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes back to not having a definition for "police officer". The "first United States police officer to be killed in the line of duty", says the article, was killed in 1791. The ODMP, the only source for most of the article, also disagrees, going back to 1808 and 1818 for Deputy Sheriffs, 1825 for a Watch Officer, 1833 for a guard for the Connecticut Department of Correction, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ignoring the ambiguities of what an "officer" is and what "in the line of duty" means, the issue is that, as it stands, this is essentially a memorial. The overwhelming majority of these deaths are not going to pass notability of themselves, and the level of detail is minimal; the principal source is a memorial itself. As a practical matter, there are already numerous such memorial pages in WP, generally organized around individual departments; I don't see how we need to make one grand union list of them all. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:NOTMEMORIAL is that we don't keep pages that serve no purpose other than a memorial. You could delete any list of deaths citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Such a list might incidentally memorialize officers killed, but that is not all it does. It aggregates the information in the broadest context, showing trends over time. It serves the obvious purpose of filling in the gaps left by lists limited only to major police departments. And we only have a few of those: Honolulu, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles PD and sheriff. We aren't going to create a list for every single tiny department; those entries fall to the main US list. We haven't yet gotten around to making list for most of the large departments. If it is ambiguous what a "officer" is or "line of duty" is for entire US list, then how is it not equally ambiguous for List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty? The overwhelming majority of these entries are also not going to pass notability themselves. As with List of British police officers killed in the line of duty. We have Category:Police officers killed in the line of duty filled with sub-categories and lists upon lists. The editors creating all of these obviously share the consensus that the terms "police officer" and "line of duty" are sufficiently unambiguous. It's true we have a lot of data here and it could be organized and aggregated in better ways. The sourcing can be improved. The minimal level of detail hand be improved. Surmountable problems. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This article does not show "trends over time". To do that, it would need to show ALL of the deaths. It will never come anywhere near that. It is and always will be an indiscriminate list of some of the deaths. It does not "fill in gaps", it is little more than a collection of gaps with a download from the biased ODMP taped on at the end. As for the other articles, yes, there are other articles. Some of them are nearly perfect. Some should have been deleted a long time ago. Most are in the middle. If you pick one at random and assume it is a model to imitate, you will copy its faults as well as its strengths. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "it would need to show ALL of the deaths". See WP:SURMOUNTABLE. "It will never come anywhere near that.". "Some of them are nearly perfect." Really? Which ones? Why? How about to decide which lists to imitate, we look only at WP:Featured lists? Say, List of deaths at the Berlin Wall. Isn't "at the Berlin Wall" ambiguous? Do they have to actually die at the wall? What if they are hurt at the wall and succumb later? What if they die 20 feet from the wall? What about 37 feet? So much ambiguity. We'll never agree. Günter Litfin is notable. But Roland Hoff isn't. Neither is Bernd Lünser. Hey, almost none of these people are notable. There are many lists at Featured lists which don't meet the fallacious criteria invented here. Except Wikipedia editorial consensus decisions aren't influenced by cheap sophistry. We use common sense and let our sources tell us what's what.Could I ask if the sources for Bernd Lünser are good enough? Yes. Could there be a talk page discussion to decide if Bernd should or should not be on the list? Yes. Is that a reason to delete it? No.I suggest spending some time with the various advice pages at Arguments to avoid and learning to recognize a fallacious argument. You have failed to cite a valid reason to delete this list. You have not attempted to improve the list criteria, so you have no evidence that finding consensus for better list criteria is impossible. Why don't you try and then come back after that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by the quality of my sophistry. Yes, to show "trends over time" (other than imaginary trends) it would need to include every death. The current article shows a VERY clear trend: Prior to 1900, the number of officers killed is in the range of 1 every 10 years, climbing to 1 a year for most of the 20th century, with the rate beginning to skyrocket in 1995. That is a trend over time. Sure it's surmountable, by building a complete list of every "American police officer" ever "killed in the line of duty". Before pointing to another article that exists and adding more personal attacks and suggesting that I have not tried to address the indiscriminate nature of such a list, please consider NPA and the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, BUT only officers with articles. This is an appropriate list, but including everyone does smack of WP:MEMORIAL, as well as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend. This is a notable topic, but it is best to limit the scope to only officers with articles. Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (but, to be clear, a Conditional Keep) - Agree with that a stricter inclusion criteria is clearly needed here, given WP:NOT and the guidelines at e.g. WP:SAL. This isn't about notability, but it seems like people are conflating notability of the concept of "death of law enforcement in the line of duty"  with "deaths of every police officer killed in the line of duty". I don't disagree that there's a good reason to have such a page, but it's not for Wikipedia. Keep on the condition of restricting it to notable individual examples. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:10, 26 September 2017 (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.