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 (but may be moved to draft space on request). The relevant policy that was cited in the nomination is WP:SYNTH which is in place to prevent combining different sources to deduce a conclusion that none of them have. Such practice is considered a form of original research. I have looked through the presented arguments and cannot see this being truly answered. For lists with clearly defined inclusion criteria, combining several sources to assemble a full list is accepted, but "controversial" is, as many have mentioned, a vague criterion which also brings up concerns with its ability to withstand WP:NPOV challenges on a topic like this one.

Starship.paint did point out that some sources have made connections between some of the entries on the list, but using sources that connect three or four entries at a time is not the same as having support for presenting a full list in this manner. Other users have pointed out that the underlying premise for the list, the killings during the past few years of African Americans in a manner perceived to be racially motivated and often by police, is a real and covered topic and have suggested that this topic be covered at Black Lives Matter.

I have considered the option of merging, but I have decided against it since problems with WP:OR would still remain. However, I recognize that some of the content could be of use in the Black Lives Matter or similar article provided that the entries can be sourced to demonstrate relevancy to that topic. Feel free to ask me or any other administrator to restore the page to draft space if you want to work with it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The table has been revised to link each entry up to Black Lives Matter. The page is now a redirect and the editing history is restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s[edit]

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

Article created purely to prevent the deletion of Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans. Article is an example of a non-notable interestection. Article combines multiple events to infer notability not explicitly stated in any of the sources and is thus WP:SYNTH. And for an "other stuff" argument, we don't have any of List of controversial killings of.... articles. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete This article is 100% politics and wikipedia is not a news service or a platform for political grandstanding. Should we also list all the gun murders of Blacks from Black? And then from Blacks on Whites, and then Whites on Blacks? Where does it end? It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to promote moral rationals or decisions, or to be drawn into such discusions. The purpose of Wikipedia is present articles of significant facts. As such, and article on the history of Police Brutality, might be a justified, if it included authentic research from ancient times to the resent. And article of "contreversal deaths since 2010" is just pure opinion and has no historical context, or research whatsoever. It is just spit out there like gum on the sidewalk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure POV on what constitutes a controversial killing. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources are connecting these deaths together. Martin, Brown, Rice and Garner ---- Ford and Brown ---- Gray, Brown and Scott --Brown, Garner, Sean Bell, Crawford and Martin ---- Brown, Garner, Crawford, Hamilton - I found these reliable sources in five minutes of Googling. There are definitely more out there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - User:Starship.paint is the creator of this article and the Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a crime and it does not render my vote invalid. Likewise, Article created purely to prevent the deletion of Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans is not a valid deletion criteria. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: - It's not a crime. It's just a note so that people understand where your !vote is coming from. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources are talking about this, imperfect as the list is or can ever be. Borock (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the murder rate in the USA overall is about 5 murders for 100,000 people per year. List of countries by intentional homicide rate. There are around 40 million African Americans. So I would expect about 800 to die of murder in a typical year, and also about 800 to commit murder. I'm guessing there is about one police officer per 1,000 people, maybe more. So about 300,000 officers. So 15 murders by police officers in a year would be normal, also 15 officers to die of murder. Not sure how much of this kind of background should be included in article, or how to do it. Borock (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Borock: - Are you new here? We have policies on original research. You may want to take a look. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to engage in conjecture: see United Nations stats presented in List of countries by intentional homicide rate and Race and crime in the United States, and the official FBI crime stats for the United States: [1]. There is no reason to guess; the data already exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think NickCT's point was that putting that data into this article would be OR. Borock (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Borock: - That was my point indeed. If you're going to put stats or numbers in an article, you should have a source for those stats or numbers. The exception being if you're doing simple calculations. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and WP:POV-pushing. I assume there must be some non-controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010 too....? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources available to justify most cases on the list. Perhaps a title change may be needed however. Buffaboy ^talk 19:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffaboy: - The fact that all the items on a list are notable doesn't justify the existence of a list. That's the whole idea behind notable intersections. NickCT (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources are making the intersections, doesn't that make the list notable? We could always rename this article, but to what? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Historically, there have been "controversial" and "non controversial" killings of practically every ethnic, political and religious group. The creation of an article entitled List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s not only implies greater importance of the killings of this ethnic group over those of other ethnic groups, but it asserts that these killings were indeed "controversial", which I'm not convinced the article actually proves. Furthermore, nothing in this article is substantial or notable in and of itself and the act of weaving these incidents together does not constitute any greater significance or notability than each incident presented alone. &nbsp Ormr2014 | Talk

greater importance of the killings of this ethnic group over those of other ethnic groups - the reliable sources are connecting the killings of African-Americans together. See my vote above for some examples. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint The only thing these sources indicate is that the killings occurred. Any connection between them is implied and despite similarities in some of the cases, implied connection is nothing more than speculation. Not all perpetrators were White, nor were they all police officers (there was even an unsolved murder in the list), making the only common denominator in every case the race of the victim. If the only real litmus test for this article is the race of the victim and the murder making the 6 O'clock news, would it thus follow that we should also have lists for "controversial killings" of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews, and so on? And what about all the other African Americans murdered that made the news? Should they not also be in the list? And what specifically is so special about the year 2010? Aren't there plenty of African Americans being killed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015? Look at the news today! What a list that would make!

I appreciate the author's desire to contribute to the encyclopedia, but you can't just take a bunch of unrelated murder victims and weave together a tapestry article where the only common thread is the race of the victims and call it encyclopedic because it's not.The fact is, none of these cases are notable and the hypothesis of this article is anything but encyclopedic. Ormr2014 | Talk

@Ormr2014: - how can anyone take your vote seriously, if you haven't even read the article? Yes, there are African Americans being killed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The list is about killings in 2010s, not only 2010. Obviously, you only read this AfD. Come forth with sources linking multiple killings of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews - then we can talk. You can claim that none of these cases are notable, but why do all of them have Wikipedia articles then? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Once again, you are assuming. Before I comment or vote on any of the AFD articles, I read them.

As for your statement about coming forth with "sources linking multiple killings of Latin Americans, Whites, Gays, Republicans, Christians, Jews", etc, it would be a moot point because those articles would likewise not warrant inclusion here. Furthermore, these sources do not "link" the killings of this particular article together in more than a speculative way. You can imply they are linked all you want, but you have not, nor has this article, demonstrated any connection whatsoever, other than the victim's race.

Other inconsistencies include the year (some were in 2010, some in 2011, some in 2012, etc.); the location (the killings are scattered across the country); the perpetrators (some were police officers, others were "neighborhood watch", "software developer", and "unknown"); even the circumstances of each varies greatly. What exactly makes these killings "connected"? Please explain because thus far, you have made no effort to do so. Are you alleging a conspiracy of sorts? The only way to possibly justify your list is to demonstrate they are indeed connected, which you have not and despite your assertion to the contrary, none of your references make this connection either. Ormr2014 | Talk

Come on now. You claim to have read the article, yet you somehow missed out on all the deaths from 2011 to 2015 (all but one of the whole article), thinking that the article was only about deaths in 2010. Of course articles on other groups like Jews do not warrant inclusion because nobody has started citing sources.
San Francisco Bay View: Seemingly every week another unarmed Black man is in the news, having been killed by a police officer or vigilante who made another fatally false assumption. Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Rekia Boyd, Freddie Gray – the list goes on.
Complex magazine: They look to remember and raise awareness of the deaths of black children that were caused by the police, including Aiyana Jones, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Trayvon Martin.
Forbes: Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Ezell Ford, John Crawford and Michael Brown, who met their deaths at the hands of police officers ... “We mourn the loss of life and the absence of justice for Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride and Jordan Davis, killed by private citizens ...
Marin Indepdendent Journal: Garza said that after Martin’s death, the violent deaths of unarmed black people began to gain more attention. She quickly rattled off a list: 43-year-old Eric Garner, 25-year-old Ezell Ford, 19-year-old Renisha McBride, 17-year-old Jordan Davis, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
Salon: It seems that our culture has never been more aware of racist police violence, and yet we are asked to treat each new incident as an isolated case rather than a harrowing pattern. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and POV-pushing. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: - Your first source is a Black Nationalist website, your second source a blog post, the third source does not substantiate your view that all these instances are connected, Marinj News is a news blogging site where most of the posts are freelance "news journalists" and hardly constitutes as an authoritative source (plus it does not draw a connection either), and the last source you listed is also a blog post.

That you still have not demonstrated, or attempted to explain how the killings in your list are connected seems to indicate that you simply don't have a reason. For example, you could say something like: "I believe these killings are connected because (reason 1., reason 2., reason 3., and so on)..." Yet you have not and we are expected to simply take your word on this?

I'm done debating this article. I've said my piece and will allow others to discuss the merits of the article... Ormr2014 | Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per starship point Freidnless lnoner (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ormr, not only is this POV but this whole controversy has been perpetrated by the media and dragged on for too long. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the cases that can can be sourced to have influenced the Black Lives Matter movement into the movement's article and then delete what's left over. This article is too broad in scope to exist as a stand-alone article, has no clear guidelines for inclusion, and has no definition as to what is "controversial." -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it could be merged with the Black Lives Matter article, there are a lot of sources discussing this general topic. Rtedb (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be a notable topic in African-American history and has inspired protests, riots, and a social movement. Historical context is lacking and better sources may be needed. But this is not uncommon for new articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's reliably sourced in the article into Black Lives Matter- the scope for this article is entirely too vague (define controversial, for example) and lacking in a central thread whereas the Black Lives Matter article isn't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is as perfect or imperfect as any other. The topic itself is notable, having received extensive news coverage. "Controversial", in the manner it is being used here, is not a POV issue (and if it were, simply renaming it would be in order; not wholesale deletion of the article -- this would be throwing the cart out with the horse). In this instance, controversy is clearly defined as that which is cited by reputable news organizations worldwide... these instances are objectively controversial, because of the widespread divided and polar stances different entities have taken on them, sometimes resulting in conflict and uprising. Furthermore, I see this article at virtually zero risk of becoming unwieldy/unmaintainable, and in fact it encompasses a very well-defined, limited scope. The commonality between the included items is self-explanatory. Finally, the nominator's argument that this is "overlistification" completely misses the point of the essay on overlistification. The essay implies that only lists which baselessly employ qualifiers such as race, ethnicity, etc., are meritless (listing examples of broad, unfounded combinations such as "Libertarian celebrities", "Hindu sportspeople"); in this case, the fact that these victims are African-American is a defining characteristic of the subject's notability. --OrbitHawk (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OrbitHawk The title of this list makes certain assumptions that none of the media publicity substantiates.

It implies that all of these killings are somehow related or connected, yet none of the facts validate this assumption.
It implies that all these killings are "controversial", but that too hasn't been substantiated as killings, by their very nature, will always receive some sort of media coverage.

Bottom Line: This article should not be part of Wikipedia, period... Ormr2014 | Talk 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The truth is, just about every police shooting is considered "controversial" in that the officer is put on administrative leave and the incident is investigated (and this isnt all just by officers). I know there is a serious question about whether the investigative process is flawed (it is, of course), but for the purposes of this article, "controversial" is too unclear of an inclusion criteria. list of controversial... is normally about subjects like art, not about human lives. every death at the hands of another person can be seen and reported as controversial. because of this vagueness, and the lack of reliable sources showing that ALL of these are UNIQUELY controversial, as a group, this should be deleted as original research and severe POV pushing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No real definition of what is considered controversial or not and it seems the list was cherry picked. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to List of cases of police brutality in the United States, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States (which should really be "lists"), Black Lives Matter, and/or other more specific venues - This is a hard one. Many of the events/people have been covered together, yes, but I think the title and scope of this list are too poorly defined to be encyclopedic and insufficiently distinct from the other articles I suggested merging to (and likely a few others that I didn't think of). "Controversial" is a very messy term. The lead explains the inclusion criteria as "individuals whose deaths were perceived as unjust or unexplained, receiving significant local, national, or international attention". Combining "unjust" and "unexplained" seems tenuous, and doesn't exactly line up with simply "controversial" (except to the extent that "unexplained" suggests suspicion of injustice). The fact of the matter is this list is almost entirely incidents involving law enforcement, and there are already articles covering that. All that said, I do see that there are topics here that are not yet sufficiently covered on Wikipedia -- I just don't think this is the right format. So let's find the specificities and organize according to them instead. Maybe there's room for a List of stand your ground law killings; a spin-off of race and crime in the United States at the intersection of hierarchy of death, missing white woman syndrome, and institutional racism that covers sub-par law enforcement efforts on behalf of African American or non-white victims; or maybe there's a better way to write an article (vs. a list) about Institutional racism and activism in the 2010s rather than defer to Black Lives Matter? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article African-American history, falls within the scope of that subject. Not all deaths were caused by law enforcement, and African-American on African-American murder is also controversial, and statistically more likely. This article can be seen as a WP:POVFORK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The only thing these killings have in common is the victim was black. Every killing can be classified as controversial if you ask the right audience. ― Padenton|✉ 01:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list just lumps victims together based on their ethnicity; "controversial" in the title is subjective; and categories exist. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it would be better for the article to be prose-focused rather than list-focused, it's clear that these recent high-profile killings have been discussed together by sources. There's a "there" there. I'd support merging Black Lives Matter here rather than the other way around - the protest movement is a part of the larger discussion around race relations and police violence in the United States, rather than these issues being a subset of discussion of the protest movement. The deletion arguments saying that "we don't really know what was controversial and what wasn't" are weak; it's glaringly obvious from the sources that these were (sometimes very highly) controversial deaths, and any individual cases that are borderline can be discussed on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original research, but also as lacking clear definitions. What is the definition of controversy/controversial? A valid list requires clear definitions. A list of police-related killings of African Americas could probably be put together. And an article on the attention now being paid to these incidents can be created, probably beginning as a section on an existing page. But the list as it stands should be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can see the author has done a ton of work on this, and I understand his point, which is the problem. It's an agenda-oriented list. As part of an article, with a lot of work to define 'controversial' and 'perceived as unjust' I think it could work. But as a standalone list it's an agenda-oriented list WP:OLIST @Starship.paint: maybe move this article to Draft space to save your work while you explore other articles it could be moved into? valereee (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you@Valereee:. I've got a copy of the article text already. If this goes, I'm planning on sending it to Black Lives Matter. Just need to find reliable sources connecting the deaths to the movement. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge - We already have List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per: E.M.Gregory, individual elements might belong in other articles but present lack of connecting definition and subjective nature of 'controversial' makes keeping inapt. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (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.