Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bosak

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:59Z

William Bosak[edit]

Police officer killed in line of duty. With respect, WP:NOT a memorial. Deizio talk 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Delete. Fails WP:BIO, but if the case that convicted his murderer was the source of some sort of case law or was a particularly public trial (which could be possible), then this article would be fine. Also, if this article is deleted, this article should be as well. PullToOpen 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might confer notability on the incident or murderer, but not the unfortunate officer. Deizio talk 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... --jaydj 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit I do have a pretty inclusionist stance on such things, and not much confidence in Wikipedia:Notability (which is a guideline, not WP policy), but I think the article is hardly a goofy vanity page or indulgent memorial. Chicagoans, law enforcement officers, and hobbyist cop-watchers like myself all fall into the category of communities with an interest in the subject. I generally vote for improvement (even potential, future improvement) over outright deletion. If nothing else, I like being able to click on each and every name in an article. Full disclosure: I'm also the guy who wrote the articles about both officers and their murderer, Kenneth Allen. Ford MF 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ford, what should qualify a police officer who has been killed in the line of duty for inclusion in Wikipedia? Obviously (and unfortunately) many police officers are killed in the line of duty. One every 53 hours or something to that effect. Who is not included? --jaydj 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a small "wiki within the wiki" that has taken a particular interest in certain cases of murdered police officers. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Pocceschi. The articles are well written and well researched. Some are poorly cited. Some are truly notable. Does this particular officer belong in the wiki? Over 500 police officers in the US alone are killed annually and I do not believe that Wikipedia is the place to catalog and memorialize them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaydjenkins (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The "500 officers" statistic is misleading. The overwhelming majority of those deaths are accidental(mostly traffic accidents). Outright murder represents a small portion of that figure. And of the small minority of police officers who are murdered in the line of duty, Bosak and Schaik are further unusual in that they didn't die as the result of a struggle with an arrestee, but at the hands of an assassin who deliberately targeted police officers for murder. Highly unusual. As a reader of Wikipedia (and true-crime nerd), I personally have no interest in guys who accidentally shot themselves while wearing the uniform, or housing cops who slip and fall off project roofs. But I generally find murder pretty fascinating, regardless of any consideration of a more global notability. As a kid I always read encyclopediae for articles that interested me; I don't think it's unreasonable to assume I'm not alone in that. Ford MF 05:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I based that number on a link from the Rodney Pocceschi article. The number of officers in the US who were feloniously killed in 2005 is 55 and 57 in 2004. --jaydj 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are they braver or more dead than the 100 farmers killed when their tractors rolled over, or the miner or construction workers who die on the job? Edison 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe so and am not changing my delete vote. There are lots of people who died in a renowned situation. Teachers murdered, millions murdered in racial cleansings. --jaydj 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being killed in the line of duty, even assassinated, does not IMHO automatically confer notability. Think of how many police officers are murdered in the line of duty across the world every year. The entire article is devoted to describing how he died. This potentially makes the murder notable (although I don't personally think so) but does not make the person notable. He's still got to pass WP:BIO. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not crazy about WP guidelines in general, but even in the WP:BIO article it says only one criterion need be fulfilled, and the last one on the list is: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated. Ford MF 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hardly think the subject here fits the spirit of the assassination point. If there is a newsworthy event here then write an article about the event, not the non-notable people involved in it. I've written more on the Rodney P listing up-page. Deizio talk 11:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteIt is sad when police die in the line of duty. It is sad when railrod personnel or utility linemen or roofers die in the course of their work. But Wikipedia is not a memorial. The article does not include any press coverage whatsoever, and only has 1 source. Provide multiple independent and reliable sources, which might exist in the newspapers of the state where it happened, which give substantial coverage, and I will change my vote. Edison 14:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That many policemen are killed is not a basis for deletion. The article should be kept if this particular death produced significant news coverage, which I would guess it did, but the article needs some indication of that before I can support keeping it. JamesMLane t c 19:41, 24 December 2006 (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.