Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Police

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Police. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Police|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Police. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Police/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law.

Police

2025 shootings of Tremonton police officers

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and Utah. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025. Raskuly (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Tremonton, Utah#2025 shooting of police, a section that existed before this AfD was initiated. This is per WP:ATD-R.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments for the nominator, XYZ1233212

@XYZ1233212, you've nominated a number of current events articles for deletion, getting considerable pushback and feedback. Recently, the vast majority have been kept, merged or redirected. Please re-read your instructions for nominating articles for deletion at WP:AFD. In particular, see the section titled "Before nominating: checks and alternatives":

- Part A. "Read and understand these policies and guidelines:"
  - Item 1."The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes.
    - Most of these current events articles you've been nominating have clear alternatives to deletion. Our deletion policy clearly states "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
- Part B. "Carry out these checks:"
  - Item 6. "Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia."
    - Had you done this, you'd have discovered that in most cases, there were articles with existing mentions of these events that you could've redirected the articles to without bothering yourself and and the rest of us with AfDs.
    - In the few cases where there wasn't an existing mention in another article, you could have added one.
  - Item 7. "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles."
    - In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riedlingen derailment, you'd have seen the German article had extensive coverage you could use. It even has an {{Expand German}} notice on it when you nominated it. If you don't want to fix the article yourself, you can put an {{Expand language}} tag on it and skip the AfD.
- Part C. "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted:"
  - Item 4. "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. Shortcut WP:CONRED. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page."
    - In most cases, the title was either a valid search term or else close enough to it for Google to find and follow a redirect to its target.

These detailed instructions are derived from our deletion policy. On Wikipedia, a "policy" means "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". Including you. And me, too.

See the section Alternatives to deletion

- The Editing and discussion subsection says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

- The Redirection section says "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate."

- The Merging subsection says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."

- The Incubation subsection says "Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process.". It gives other details including the comment "Incubation must not be used as a 'backdoor to deletion'." Editors forget about articles, so "draftification" is not as desirable as other alternatives because drafts get automatically deleted after 6 months of activity.

I hate calling you out on this but I've left comments pointing to these policies on previous AfDs as well as on your talk page at User talk:XYZ1233212#Redirects for current events; these have had no impact to date.

As always, thanks again for your concern for our content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}

A. B., AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss a WP:BLAR. If XYZ1233212 performed a BLAR on each of these articles instead of starting an AfD discussion, I guarantee you they would be accused of backdoor deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025. It is definitely due here, while but it's not so clear cut whether the whole subsection at Tremonton, Utah. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that this article should be given a chance for a standalone article. The shooting itself was high profile in nature, and from the looks of it, it appears that the unlawful killing of police officers in Utah was lesser in comparison with quite a number of states in general. Also, there was clear emotional impact left on the public and the local community especially. According to the mayor mentioned in the article, this was Utah's first case of double murder of police officers in more than a century. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just to add on, I note that the death penalty was not frequently sought for murder cases in Utah, plus reference to the article about the upcoming execution of Ralph Menzies [1], there were only 11 people condemned to death row and executions in Utah were also extremely rare. Just today, the prosecution confirmed that the death penalty will be requested in that case. [2], [3], [4]. I thought that the nature of the case and circumstances themselves could warrant it a chance to exist in Wikipedia. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then this case will get persistent coverage. Readers will also be Googling it over the next 1-3 years and it would be helpful to have something reliable on Wikipedia (as opposed to their relying on social media or hallucinatory AI).

I’m busy now but leaning toward keep. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Awful crime, Northern UT has very little violent crime. Albanianrapper (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While on a national scale these crimes may seem routine, in Utah and Neighboring states, this rarely happens. The effect of the community and state is profound. Thus, people will be researching this case and the court trials heavily throughout the following months and years. Having a Wikipedia page would help people to find the full story quickly. ‪Tagloph79‬ (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)— Tagloph79‬ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Changed from "redirect". See my 14:30, 21 August 2025 comment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per A. B.. I will also comment that this nominator seems to keep nominating similar pages like this for deletion, the vast majority have been kept, merged or redirected. I don't think it's right they should be allowed to keep doing this as it feels like they are making basless Afd nominations without fully studying each article. I will add that not all of them are baseless, such as this one: (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Crown Heights nightclub shooting), but most are. Inexpiable (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025 per WP:ATD. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. As a recent event this topic is not able to show WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DIVERSE coverage and it is therefore WP:TOOSOON to have an article. The sourcing is entirely WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage and cannot count towards WP:GNG. Note to closer, the keep votes are entirely WP:ILIKEIT opinions and are not policy based. Please weigh the strength of the arguments in your close.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the WP:ITSIMPORTANT-type Keep votes, I see no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]