Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philadelphia Police Department 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL; none of the men on this list possess articles on themselves either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a daughter list of List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability as long as the parent list is notable. The manual of style envisages lists that contain no individually notable entries. James500 (talk) 17:26, 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) 18:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deserves expansion with additional references. Certainly a noteworthy topic and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CSC says list members don't need to be notable. Nothing in WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 09:04, 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.