Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom


 * 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. Plenty of input here but no consensus reached. Michig (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: This list is accusatory, defamatory, pointless and ridiculous, clearly originated by an editor with a political agenda. It contains a total of 28 names (mostly killings in Northern Ireland, including terrorists and some controversial mostly recent shootings). Many of the incidents/individuals have their own articles already. This list is a pointless minuscule fraction of deaths under a variety of circumstances, none of which are explained. How many people have been killed by UK law enforcement since 1922?? Is there a List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the Republic of Ireland or a List of people killed by law enforcement officers in France or a List of people killed by law enforcement officers in Germany or any other European country? Quis separabit?  23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a List of killings by law enforcement officers in Germany. I will create a parent page at List of killings by law enforcement officers, which presently redirects to the US list. James500 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. James500 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "How many people have been killed by UK law enforcement since 1922??"--Loads, but I can only find reliable data from 2004/5 to date. For that time, the figure is 309 killed on the roads during pursuits etc., 207 died while in police custody, 506 by suicide shortly after being released from police custody, 354 "other", and 23 shot dead by police.  I think this list is too large in scope and there's too little information about individual cases: it's basically unmaintainable.  However, a list of people shot dead by UK police doesn't seem unreasonable: information published by the ONS ((which is where I'm getting my numbers) isn't accusatory, defamatory, pointless or ridiculous.— S Marshall  T/C 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's highly subjective (and would demonstrate a clear anti-police agenda) to say that people killed due to police pursuits, who died in police custody or who committed suicide were killed by the police. The first and third categories by and large were responsible for their own deaths. The deaths of the middle category occurred for a variety of reasons, most of them not the fault of the police. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true. The source calls it "Deaths during or following police contact", which is more NPOV. I think the conclusion we all all except James500 seem to be reaching is that we need to delete this list. But a "List of people shot dead by UK police" might be workable.— S Marshall  T/C 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We have not all come to that conclusion. I have already decided this is a valid topic (no comment on the existing content). I am under the impression that BLP is a non issue if a killing happened so long ago that all the parties must have died of old age by now, so that can't automatically preclude this topic. I see no reason to confine the list to shootings. I am under the impression that it is possible for a person to be killed by a baton, where this weapon causes a skull fracture or brain damage: . I am under the impression that it is possible for a person to be killed by certain "restraining techniques" that essentially involve choking the victim. I am under the impression that it is possible for a person to be killed by being pushed over onto a concrete pavement if they hit their head. Where A puts B in fear of violence, and B is fatally injured while trying to escape (such as where B jumps out of a window because he is being shot at with a gun and is killed by the fall), this could be classified as manslaughter the last time I checked (see eg Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para 19-10). I am under the impression that pepper sprays and Tasers can kill. I don't see why such killings should be excluded. James500 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can all kill. So can many other things. However, a list like like this highly POV as it tacitly suggests (even if not worded as such) that all deaths occurring during or after police contact were the "fault" of the police and therefore probably unjustified. If this is not the case, why do we not have the articles List of people killed by builders in the United Kingdom or List of people killed by doctors in the United Kingdom (that would be a long one if it covered anyone who died during or after contact with a doctor!)? We never will, because there is no political capital to be gained out of such lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, James500, I've corrected that. Although I agree with Necrothesp that this list should be deleted, I don't think it should be deleted because it's political. Firstly because deaths that take place around police interventions are a legitimate matter of concern, published by the ONS and often reported on by mainstream media, and secondly because even if the list is politically motivated, I don't see why that means we have to delete it. I think Necrothesp is advocating the right outcome for the wrong reasons.— S Marshall T/C 12:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Statistics on deaths in hospitals or in road accidents are also published and are often seen by the media as legitimate causes for concern. Does that make a list of people who die in hospital or road accidents valid? Such lists are by their very nature POV and are going to be selective, and we have a policy which applies to this. I think it would be very hard indeed to keep such a list NPOV and of a workable size. What criteria should we use for choosing who is included in such a list? I have no problem with a list of people shot dead by police officers in the UK, as that is incredibly rare, not part of everyday life, and including everyone who was shot dead by the police is a fact and not especially POV. I also have no problem with a list of people who died during police contact in cases where the courts found a police officer was criminally liable. Again, that's a fact. Including everyone James500 wants to include, however, clearly is POV. Why should we, for instance, include someone on a list who was drunk, got into a fight with a police officer, fell over and fatally banged their head, but not someone who was drunk, got into a fight with a random passerby, fell over and fatally banged their head? Unless he's found guilty of an offence in a court of law, is the police officer any more to blame because he's a police officer? No, of course not. But including the drunken idiot on the list implies he is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A list of people killed by doctors might be appropriate. There is, for example, such a thing as medical negligence and some doctors are apparently serial killers. Likewise with a list of people killed by building defects. It would depend on whether it satisfies LISTN.
 * The problem with confining this list to cases where the police officer was criminally liable is that laws inherently have their own POV, especially where parliamentary sovereignty theoretically allows anything whatsoever to be put on (or taken off) the statute book. Why, for example, should we exclude a killing done in the course of enforcing a particularly unpopular law? "Parliament says its okay" isn't NPOV, it is Parliament POV. Likewise with precedents and other sources of law. Conversely, why should we include a killing that was held criminal by the courts but which the vast majority of the public, rightly or wrongly, thought was 'morally justified'? Including all killings is arguably only way to neutrality.
 * I can't see why including all killings should imply they are all improper either. It could just as easily be alleged to imply they were all justified. I don't think it implies anything at all. James500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - no more useful, notable or coverage-worthy than List of people killed by aeroplane propellers in the United Kingdom or List of people killed by badgers in the United Kingdom. There isn't even consistency in the article - criminals? mistakenly killed? anti-terror operations? is MI5 "law enforcement"? hit by a car driven by an off-duty cop? What about deaths in custody or those prior to the 20 century? Executions carried out by law enforcement? List of people by in . Like a Mr Potato Head. We could have some fun with articles like that! Just nonsense.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded on that score as well. Quis separabit?  23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any reliable source that asserts that a person has ever been killed by a badger. We do, however, have a lists of people killed by dogs and cougars, and a list of crocodile attacks. I don't think the comparison is valid because there isn't, as far as I am aware, a body of literature on the subject of "badger brutality". There is, however, a large body of literature on the use of lethal force by police officers eg . James500 (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There you go again, you see. You're suggesting that police use of lethal force automatically equals police brutality! I don't know whether you have a political stance on this or not, but your choice of language does suggest you do. And that's the fundamental problem with the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not suggested that police use of lethal force automatically equals police brutality. I do not think that having a list of all people killed by police officers suggests it either. My language does not suggest that I have any political stance whatsoever. James500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This has the potential of being a decent article. However, as it stands, it is a BLP nightmare. Cleary Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggan are defined by how they died. Maybe WP:NUKE this and start again.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why (and the only reason why) Duggan and Menezes, or at least their deaths, have their own articles. Quis separabit?  13:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Lugnuts: I think you mean to refer to the essay sometimes called WP:NUKEANDPAVE. WP:NUKE redirects to Nuke which is about a media wiki extension that allows mass deletion of multiple pages. James500 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is obviously a valid topic. I think that it is inconceivable that homicides by police officers in any sizeable country will not satisfy LISTN. That is the consensus we have come to every time we have had this discussion, starting with nomination of the list for the United States a number of years ago. And as this is arguably a daughter list of the worldwide topic, it doesn't have to be independently notable either, because LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability. The number of killings is not a plausible objection, as we are NOTPAPER, and the US list will be much longer. James500 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. In this instance, a category is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDUP precludes that as a grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's why I said "in this instance"! Usually I agree that a list and a category can happily coexist, and have argued it at AfD many times, but in this instance I see no reason for an article that singles out a few people (a number of them redlinked). Most people "killed" by the police are simply not notable, even in Britain where relatively very few people are killed by the police. Notable people killed by the police (who are, most often, notable for being killed by the police, as most weren't at all notable before, which is even more of a reason not to have an article) are better off listed in a category, not an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the inclusion of Category:Police misconduct in the United Kingdom shows a clear bias on this article, as it implies that all these deaths were due to misconduct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That can be fixed by removing the category. James500 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but the very fact it's there in the first place illustrates perfectly the potential for POV abuse that such an article attracts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said at the beginning of this thread, these kinds of lists are politically inspired. I have always loved making lists since I was a kid, which long predates cyberspace, but once you enter the real world, you need to exercise good judgment. Quis separabit?  21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that political motivation is an issue in relation to the topic (I haven't looked at the content yet). We also have lists of police officers killed in the course of performing their office. These provide "balance", if that is needed. Anyway the test for lists is LISTN, not "does the mere existence of this list potentially benefit some political cause", which could be used to delete all sorts of perfectly reasonable lists, and probably wouldn't be compatible with NOTCENSORED. At the AfD for the US list, sources were adduced which appeared to demonstrate the notability of the group as a group. James500 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't think we should have lists of police officers killed on duty either, any more than we should have lists of soldiers killed in war. We should only have lists of those unlawfully killed, since that clearly is notable (especially in Britain, where cop killings are pretty rare). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments about exclusion of lawful homicide above. James500 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In view of the objections to the topic of this list, the list for the United States (and any others that might exist) should possibly have been included in this nomination, because you can't object to one topic without objecting to the other. If the US list is not subsequently included in this nomination, arguments against the topic of this list may have to be ignored, because notice of this AfD has not been added to articles and deletion sorting lists to which it is relevant, and because we don't want to have to take this to DRV if the US list gets kept in a subsequent AfD. James500 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me because not everything can be listified adequately or appropriately. However, I would repeat your comment from above:"I think that it is inconceivable that homicides by police officers in any sizeable country will not satisfy LISTN. That is the consensus we have come to every time we have had this discussion, starting with nomination of the list for the United States a number of years ago. And as this is arguably a daughter list of the worldwide topic, it doesn't have to be independently notable either, because LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability." The United States is kind of a sui generis case, first because of its size and power, and second as a Western democracy which still retains capital punishment (albeit now in only a minority of its states) unlike other Western democracies. Why for instance was the category Naturalized citizens only CFDed in re Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States but not for any other country? Quis separabit?  18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom is also a large and powerful country. It was formerly the most powerful country in the world, with the largest empire. It also retained capital punishment till 1964 in practice and till 1998 in theory. Since this list isn't confined to any particular period of history, I think an argument that the US is a special case may be incompatible with NTEMP. The category you mention doesn't prove a rule, and we are said to have a bias towards the US because of we have more editors from that country than any other. James500 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the contents of the list, I find that many entries are not properly referenced. Could the BLP problems with the content be dealt with by simply removing all entries that are not properly referenced or which though referenced are not clearly within the scope of the list? If that is not sufficient, would revision deletion suffice? James500 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not 100% clear what you mean. Quis separabit?  16:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some editors suggest above that this list be "blown up" and then recreated because the present content has BLP issues. I am asking if those issues could be fixed through normal editing or revision deletion. James500 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * A list of persons killed by the constabulary force in Ireland from 1823 to 1830: . I suspect there will be other complete lists already compiled for different periods and for the rest of the UK. I mention this to dispel the notion that a list of this kind would necessarily be incomplete or dominated by recentism. I am under the impression that it ought in principle to be possible to assemble a complete list because there is always a coroner's inquest into an unnatural death. James500 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC) That list was continued to 1846 by a second parliamentary paper: . James500 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several high-profile cases such as Ian Tomlinson, Mark Duggan and Jean Charles de Menezes. The list is therefore useful as a navigation index.  There seems to be plenty of coverage of such cases out there and so WP:LISTN is satisfied. Andrew D. (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:POVFORK. The problem with the article is that despite the title, a significant part of it is devoted to documenting Royal Ulster Constabulary action in Northern Ireland, which is a very different emphasis from, say, Jean Charles de Menezes - the latter was a completely civillian case in a country that was not under internal conflict. I could support a series of categories, as those reading about de Menezes' case might also be interested in Death of Mark Duggan, but I don't think there's much in common with the pair of them compared to, say, Diarmuid O'Neill. As it is, I think this simply a case of a bunch of tenuously related cases looking for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable because that discourages recording deaths which are not notable while this list explicitly concentrates on notable cases
 * WP:POVFORK does not seem relevant because there's no indication of what the other fork is supposed to be and why we couldn't merge, rather than delete, per WP:ATD. Note that we have a similar category People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom and, per WP:CLN, that's a reason to keep rather than delete
 * It seems easy to find sources linking such cases as Diarmuid O'Neill and Jean Charles de Menezes, e.g. "There are several similarities with the shooting of De Menezes"
 * Note that official statistics are maintained about such cases
 * Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One possible way round that is to rewrite the article as prose, rather than a list. That way, the relationship between any events can be documented and sourced, which list really can't. It can also outline public reaction to police injustice. Through that, we could include Stephen Lawrence who wasn't killed by the police but generated a similar level of public outcry and police injustice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I will leave it to you guys to work it out. I am just glad to have started the ball rolling. Yours, Quis separabit?  18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what Ritchie333 claims, NOTMEMORIAL is wholly irrelevant. It says that we do not create standalone articles for non-notable dead people. It does not say that we do not create lists of them. It says that "subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements". The subject of this article is a group of people who are collectively notable and therefore satisfy WP:LISTN. Whether they are individually notable is irrelevant because notability does not apply to content within an article (WP:NNC) Nor does a list of people killed by police officers memorialize anyone. A list like this, especially when complete, is valuable for the study of history and what might be called "police science" and so forth. Why do you think Parliament had a complete list of these killings (with details of inquests etc) compiled for Ireland over a 23 year period at least? Answer: To facilitate research.
 * POVFORK is also irrelevant because the list can simply be expanded with more entries for people killed at any time in Great Britain and before 1922 in Ireland. It ought to be complete. I should also point out that if it transpired that the RUC had killed more people than mainland police forces (I haven't checked the statistics), that would not be POV, it would be due weight. We do not delete an article because it is incomplete. That is prohibited by WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If people persist in objecting to the topic of this list, the corresponding list for the US, and for any other country (there might be one for Canada), will have to be included in this nomination, unless we are prepared to ignore those objections, because they are all part of a single list, and we don't do "salami tactics" at AfD. James500 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I already said above I am happy to see if the article can be improved and refocused by regular editing, but to make it clear I've struck my !vote while I work out what to do. In the meantime, it would be really helpful if people worked on the content rather than bludgeoning their point of view here, which doesn't (at least directly) improve article quality. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That essay is wrong in principle. Contrary to what that absurd essay claims, editors certainly do not have a right to impose an arbitrary "word limit" on others for the purpose of stifling (non-repetitious) discussion and suppressing (non-repetitious) ideas. If an erroneous or doubtful interpretation of policy is advanced, it is essential that the policy be once accurately explained by someone (and it does not matter who), to prevent people who haven't read the policy piling on, or closing the AfD, in ignorance of what the policy actually says. That essay also fails to understand that consensus is supposed to be determined by the strength of arguments, not the number of !voters, so, excepting unnecessary repetition of the same argument, it is irrelevant whether some people say more than others. What that essay proposes would actually make it impossible to determine consensus. I am going to fix that essay or write an alternative essay, because what that essay says is clearly nonsense. James500 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems sensible and apposite to me.— S Marshall T/C 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Combination articles of this time are he way to handle the less-than-notable that still merit some coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form or other, per above.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 06:45, 12 March 2015 (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.