Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate collection of incidents, explicitly negative POV Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Canada. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Neither point is grounds for deletion. I don't expect a list article about controversies to have more positive coverage than negative coverage, but I do expect it to mention both sides – in this case, the RCMP's responses. This POV issue can be remedied by anyone who wishes to, and is not a part of deletion policy. I think WP:ATTACK could be argued here, but that argument hasn't been made yet and I personally don't see it. Yue🌙 02:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Law enforcement in Canada. I see nom's point about this being indiscriminate, b/c there's a lack of good organization by theme or time period, it's a ton of sections where one-off, minimal-coverage events are treated basically the same way as sprawling, major investigations - but deleting for WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems like a stretch. Most countries have a controversies section in their law enforcement article rather than a standalone page - perhaps this topic could be better-served as a section in Law enforcement in Canada (which lacks sufficient discussion of controversies anyways). I don't see a good case for outright deletion here. Zzz plant (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Not convinced that these are issues that can't be resolved through editing instead of deletion. It may be served by breaking it up/regrouping (e.g. pre/post Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP and Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, Indigenous relations, deaths in custody, etc.) The topic has been pretty widely covered by news and academic sources as demonstrated by both the sources in the article and those from online searches (e.g. [1], [2]). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

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.