Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.

List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty
SELF-NOM For those people who are looking at this thinking, "isn't this already nominated?", the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is in charge of the law enforcement of Unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and also for the many incorporated cities who have contracted the Department. They also provide Bailiffs for the courthouses in LA County, operate the county's jails, and have their own training academy, which is also contracted to train smaller police departments. In contrast, the LAPD is in charge of law enforcement in the city of Los Angeles only.

So this is another fallen officers list, comparable I think to the List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty, which was nominated some days ago. As usual, all comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like a good list, great work. Gary King (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This list looks to be of high quality and in my opinion it is worthy of Featured Status. --Mifter (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for many some of the same layout issues as in the other list.
 * Cause of deaths seem too generic, and I'd rather see short summaries of each entry to give the "story" when few will ever be notable enough to have their own article. If not in a field at the end, maybe a single merged cell under each entry (similar to how episode articles have summaries under the cells with their basic info).
 * The notes are confusing tacked in a column at the end, along with the codes and color-coding. It doesn't make it very easy to read or comprehend entries and causes readers to have to keep scrolling up and down to find out what each means.
 * The list says it is a list of "officers killed in the line of duty" so why are there entries for people who died of a heart attack? That isn't being killed, it is dying of natural causes. And one entry died during surgery on his knee. His receiving the injury to his knee on the job doesn't mean his dying during the surgery is "being killed in the line of duty." Another who died in a train crash on the way to work doesn't seem like being "killed" in the line of duty either. I realize the criteria in the list seems to be just to be on the official list, but if that's all it is, we aren't doing much but replicating the official list.
 * This is a good point which I second SGGH speak! 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor note: See also should be above Refs.

Collectonian (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as before:
 * The criticism of the other list did not seem to have any effect on this there is still the use of color to emphasize the unimportant, such as the differentiation of those who died on the same day as the incident and those who died on later days. Much more important, there is still the hazy criteria. Unlike the previous commentator, I am personally willing to accept people who died during knee surgery after an accident actually on the line of duty, and someone dying of a heart attack during a chase (for example) is also OK with me--but these disagreements highlight the uncertain criteria. In particular I am not willing to accept as reasonable the department's definition of line of duty as including traveling to and from work--I regard that as a dubious publicity device, possibly  to increase survivor's benefits. I see no reason why we should accept the designation as significant used by a source with an obvious COI in increasing the impressiveness of the list--that is not exercising NPOV or even common sense.
 * Again, the details are unsourced. We need to assume the proper research of the authority we're using, and almost all the information that might be of value to a reader is eliminated. I see, for example, someone who died of gunfire, but not a work. I'd like to know more about it--was it a domestic dispute, or was it perhaps something more distinctive for better or worse--did he get into a extra-curricular gunfight, or was he surprised by a robber, or whatever?There's a fall at work--was it actually during a chase (as frequently occurs in the movies), or did he misstep in the station house stairway, or what? Car accidents have a very different meaning if they occur during a police action or otherwise; struck by vehicle--was this a by a suspect, or an accident at a traffic stop?  Note G is an example of the sort of person who does not belong on this list.  But note A sounds fascinating, and is certainly worth a full article--there must be full accessible sources for this.  and
 * Notes D and F are good examples of the type of information that's wanted. Now get similar information for all the others, and then propose as a featured list. Ity will then be a very good one! DGG (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.