Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty

edit
List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems entirely outside the project's scope. There do not seem to be that many articles on this project concerning subjects similar to this and it seems that very little of the people in this list have articles of their own. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject thereby allowing people to produce lists covering every single law enforcement agency around the world and their brethren who died on duty.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it is according to LISTN, which notes that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.. That this is the case for "police officers killed in the line of duty" is not hard to see:
    Samuel Walker Professor of Criminal Justice University of Nebraska at Omaha (11 April 1993). Taming the System : The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 32–. ISBN 978-0-19-536015-8.
    Robert C. Wadman (2009). Police Theory in America: Old Traditions and New Opportunities. Charles C Thomas Publisher. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-0-398-08568-1.
    James F. Pastor (12 December 2010). Terrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama Presidency. CRC Press. pp. 327–. ISBN 978-1-4398-1581-6.
    There are many more such sources, and in JSTOR too, which I'm not bothering to link to. It seems to me to be a LISTN slam-dunk.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    LISTN also says the event should be notable. Every single Singaporean cop's death on the job does not seem notable. It does get covered by the local press, as do many events, but these are people only notable for one thing it seems, and that is their death.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't, it says exactly the opposite: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. The individual items do not in fact need to be notable. This is a crucial element of LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But how is the group or set notable?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, as stated above and demonstrated by three of the multitude of sources available.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But none of those are about Singapore. And none of them are about being killed in the line of duty. And the fact that every death gets reported by the press does not count.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you see, you didn't ask me about Singapore at first. You said I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject and I produced sources to show that it was. Now if we're just talking about ones in Singapore, we are talking about "Lists of X of Y", where X="police officers killed in the line of duty" and Y="Singapore." WP:LISTN says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. However, I will say that "policemen killed in the line of duty in Los Angeles," (which you did not nominate for deletion) satisfies LISTN all by itself. Singapore, being as notable a place as Los Angeles, seems to me to have as good a claim to satifying LISTN. And the fact that none of the sources are about police being killed in the line of duty is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the sources treat "police killed in the line of duty" as a group or set, and they're RS, so that makes the grouping notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a real stretch. And these few AFDs are me testing the waters because I really do not see how these lists meet the notability requirements, and simply saying "oh it's a list of two things" means that there's no rule so it's good to go is just complete bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a stretch at all, but good luck to you. I wish you'd bundled them, though. Perhaps you'll put a note at the top of each notifying the closer of the others, since clearly they all stand or fall together.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont particularly "agree" with the current set-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPotatoSalad (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mosaic, dont listen to that trash. Its obvious that SweetPotatoSalad is another aforementioned sockpuppet of Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs). A thread was started on WP:AN/I for all his foolishness so he will be banned soon. I'ma Scoop! (talk)
I'ma Scoop! - Even a total and complete asshole can have an opinion which should be taken into account. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Wiki-star has realized I'm onto him and now he's socking and claiming I'm him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Singapore_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty&oldid=1074690314"