Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Deaths in Custody

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 No consensus to delete. Anyone wishing to merge the articles can do so. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Deaths in Custody

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons discussed below:

On first glance, the article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information that is true, but not important enough for an encyclopedia. However, examining the forked article dealing with "controversial deaths" in police custody introduces more problems. The information is incomplete, dealing with only "black/ethnic minority" deaths – not only a bizarre criterion (basically "everyone but whites") but also potential WP:POV – as well as it being unclear who is actually deciding what is "controversial" and not in the first place.

While i am trying to assume good faith here, it also appears to me that the article creator is aware of the article's heavy bias ([1], [2]) or even untroubled by this situation. i am inclined towards deleting both but i'm at quite a loss on how to go forward, so thought i would request community viewpoints. Thanks. tomasz. 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can understand why this has ended up here. Trying to negotiate the mindfield that these articles present is a tricky one... Firstly, I'd suggest getting rid of Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody as the title alone is a slippery slope, never mind that all the info is contained in the other article. As far as the main article on discussion here is concerned I believe the problem is that, essentially, this is a simple list of info. I did have the thought that this list is really pointing at something that may be more suited to a line or two in another article, but I'm afraid that the unnerving amount of POV behind it tends to muddy the waters too much. My vote, for the time being, is to Delete the both of them, but I welcome further input. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, regarding Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody: I now see that the info doesn't appear in the other article... obviously didn't read it as carefully as I should have. However to clarify I think that the other article's faults are certainly shared by this one, and the title adds to it. (I'll shut up now) OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really like the new word used above by OBM, "mindfield." Think very carefully and softly while crossing a mindfield. Edison (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that was a complete accident... but I will now pretend that it wasn't, as I quite like that too. :D OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 18:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the POV. An article based on only black / ethnic minority deaths seems to be trying to make a point and could lead to accusations of racism. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article can be recreated from a fork from the Wikipedia article "Death in custody"Examples of deaths in custody in the UKand when there is more information about deaths in custody in the UK than is to be found on the page "Black Deaths in Custody" from the "The Institute of Race Relations"-web-site (IRR) [3](talk) 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- The article concept itself is notable, but the article will have to be changed dramatically. In its current incarnation, the article is race bait; however, only unsalvageable articles can be deleted. I don't see that this article fits that description. 83.203.129.196 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for UK Deaths in Custody or merge to Death in custody#UK. Delete Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody. The topic of "death in custody" is clearly notable. These two articles are both in urgent need of careful editing to get them on topic and to remove POV. The references include criticism by Institute of Race Relations of deaths of blacks in UK custody. Another news article referenced deals with death of youth of all description. Death of IRA prisoners is not addressed. I do not agree with simply making a Wikipedia article by copying the Institute of Race Relations list of black deaths in custody and calling it an article, or by selectively adding names of non-blacks to it. There should be only names/cases which have been noted by reliable sources as "controversial deaths" or landmark cases which led to government inquiries, new laws, or societal changes such as prison reform. There is nothing encyclopedic about a selective listing of people who died for one reason or another or for reason unknown. Look for articles from mainstream press in the UK about the problem of death in custody and a good article can be written. I would look for articles about the problem in general, rather than individual cases, although [4] touches on the larger problem. See also a book by the group Inquest "Dying on the inside:examining women's deaths in prison(2008) [5] and "Unlocking the truth:families' experiences of the investigation of deaths in custody(2007)" See also the book "In the Care of the State? Child Deaths in Penal Custody in England and Wales (2005)" [6] . See the BBC on custody deaths [7] , [8]. There is 4NI.co.uk "New agency set to probe deaths in custody" [9]. The UK Parliament issued a report on it [10]. Edison (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Combine, and source this is not really acceptable as stands--the table by itself is not encyclopedic without a discussion; the lists are in urgent need of individual sourcing--which should certainly be possible, though it may take some time to do it. I dont think its indiscriminate, since inclusion was based on the sources cited. DGG (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the evidence supporting deletion is listed above, however I would add the fact that any article on deaths in police custody must include some reference/warning about statistical bias - all people in police custody have a higher statistical likelihood of death, not because police officers and civilian detention staff are murderers, but because of the mathematical principles involved: the incidence of such deaths would be the same as that for the general population only if people were arrested at random from that population! A better way of explaining is to use examples: (a) a number of people fight violently, and all get arrested, but despite statutory procedures for medical treatment, sometimes life-threatening injuries get missed by the doctors called to certify fitness for detention; (b) some people who are apparently drunk are drugged and/or ill, and the previous caveat applies; (c) "Deaths in police custody" also includes anyone who dies within 24 hours of being released from custody, so a sex offender who is released due to non-co-operation by the victim, or who is charged with offences but gets bail (to which they are entitled unless grounds exist for refusal), might well leave the police station and subsequently (and unexpectedly) commit suicide. So the death rate for this class of people is statistically higher than for the general population. And there is a more complex and emotive argument relating to social inequalities between ethnic groups and variations in rates of offending that are statistically linked to those inequalities - the evidence shows that poorer people are much more likely to steal from each other than from richer people, who can better afford security. The relevance? People who steal are more likely to get arrested and be locked up! GraceCourt (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article may not be perfect, its basic claims are sourced, and it should be expanded, not deleted. -- 790 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly merge with Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody. Biophys (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "articles" both deal purely with Black deaths, conisdered controversial only by the Author's Original Research. There is no criteria for inclusion, and given that inclusion cannot be based purely on ethnicity (Actual it's all Black, and "ethnic minority", though i didn't know that was race), to actually expand the article would give us an exceptionally long list of people all of whom are not notable and the list would of course be entirely unencyclopedic. I would support an article on the subject of controversial deaths while in police custody, given the acceptable references in the Secondary article, however neither of these lists show any merit as articles in themselves, and could only serve to be worse if merged. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps i wouldn't agree entirely with a new article on the subject (the lists still need to go). On inspection of the sources that seemed reliable, i notice one is from 1991, and referenced as an acceptable arguemnt to the now, and the other is written by a purely biased writer. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combine - a notable concept, but no need for two articles on it --T-rex 01:10, 3 July 2008 (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.