Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnstable Police Department

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Barnstable Police Department

Barnstable Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't really see how a police department in a small city can merit a Wikipedia article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Serving a city of 45,000 is significant (The
    WP:GNG. [1][2][3][4] These are just from the last couple of months. --Oakshade (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your only deletion rationale is "I don't really see how a police department in a small city can merit a Wikipedia article." Now you're saying "The size of the population is not relevant here." Which is it? WP:GNG makes it very clear that it requires the existence of sources and not that they already be place din the article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for deletion, not Zackmann08. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got confused with the indenting. Sorry. The point about
WP:GNG is standing though. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Not any more. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oakshade: All you did was add a single source (which you didn't even properly format) to fit in to content that was already there. Content should be based on a source, you don't just get a random source to support a statement already made. Plus, the page still fails notability. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I added two sources, added content and added sources to that content. Additionally added a source to the existing content in which there was a "citation needed" tag.[5] You were the editor who placed that "citation needed" tag there. [6] You're welcome. This editor !voted "delete" solely because there were no secondary sources. Now there are two. Adding sources to articles in AfD should always be encouraged (see
WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: It looks like you stopped reading NRVE before the sentence "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Ravenswing 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I did specify sources, namely all the sources in GBooks. The link is at the top of the page and there are not so many sources that you couldn't look at all of them. James500 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you didn't specify sources; an airy "Go look at GBooks" is nothing of the sort. Have you any specific sources you claim meet the standards?" Ravenswing 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is nonsense. I did not invoke some of the sources in GBooks. I invoked all of them. I invoked every single one, together, as a unit. I said that the total combined coverage contained in all these sources (there are on the order of thirty) is, taken together, as a whole, significant. I'm not going to provide a list of thirty odd links to those sources individually, as that would serve no purpose. It would be unduly burdensome to provide a blow by blow account. Remember, significant coverage doesn't have to consist of a massive spiel in each of a few sources. It can consist of much shorter passages in a much larger number of sources. If you feel that the total combined coverage in those sources is not significant, because you want more sources and lengthier passages, you are entitled to that opinion, but you can't say that I haven't produced any sources, just because I haven't provided a list of thirty odd links. To say that would be nonsense. James500 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fire districts that are the subject of the other AfD mentioned above are also notable. James500 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Quite aside from that the Keep proponents haven't found it worth their bother to add the reliable sources providing the significant coverage they infer exist ("capecodwave.com" and the town's weekly newspaper aren't the sort to be in that category), there's just plain nothing here that can't fit in a couple sentences in the town government section at the Barnstable article. I do agree with James500 that this is a plausible redirect. Ravenswing 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This rationale is self-contradictory. First keep proponents didn't "bother to add the reliable sources", but then there's a put down of one of the reliable sources that a keep proponent bothered to add. Not sure what to respond to. Anyway, regarding Cape Code Wave, as long as there's editorial control over its content and it's independent of the topic, it is an acceptable source per
WP:Reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Ravenswing: Do you realise that the sheer number of simultaneous nominations has so far made it impossible for me to add sources to the article? This line of reasoning would encourage mass nominations with the express object of making it impossible to improve more than a small fraction of the articles within the AfD deadline. James500 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sheer number of simultaneous nominations...' I've only AfD'd four of these department articles. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Four nominations is far more than I personally can handle when they are as active as these ones, and there two or three other similar nominations brought by other users (so many that I am actually losing count). And I am trying to find time to create new articles, and maintain other articles, as well. In my opinion, editors should never nominate more than one article at a time, unless it is
an emergency, because that is all the system can handle, due to a severe lack of manpower. James500 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Responding first to Oakshade, what I put down was the non-reliable source that was added. As far as capecodwave.com goes, I agree with you. What evidence do you proffer that it does have editorial control over its content and that it has a proven reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Responding to James500, that's nonsense I've seen a lot from certain Keep proponents at AfD over the years. AfDs are open for seven days, but I've found valid sources for many an article threatened at AfD in seven seconds -- if they existed at all. You've had, and have, ample time to do so yourself ... quite aside from that this article was created five years ago. While I don't agree that the sources Oakshade is turning up are good, he's working to find sources. What's stopping you? Ravenswing 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate at which I write, it would probably take me at least a week to expand and improve one of these articles properly. To do six or seven would likely take months. If anyone is capable of properly and fully expanding and improving six or seven stub articles in about a day, whilst participating in all those AfDs, in which the discussion is proceeding so quickly that he can barely get a word in edgeways, he must be some kind of robot or superhuman. What you ask is simply too much for a mere mortal like me. Seven days is a very short length of time to conduct an AfD for a non-BLP (and, as a result, most AfDs seem to be repeatedly relisted). At Wikiversity, for example, the duration of a PROD is ninety days, and RFD appear to be of indeterminate duration, and with good reason. James500 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure how you conflate four of these active AfDs into six or seven, and I'm frankly baffled at how slowly you claim to write and research (although you're the best judge of your own speed), but I've a few thoughts for your consideration. First off, there are many other editors on Wikipedia, and saving articles doesn't live or die on your personal participation. Secondly, I'm not sure what about AfD discussions requires you or anyone else to respond to every statement anyone makes -- what prevents setting out your position and leaving it to that? Thirdly, while you claim not to have the time to improve so much as a single article under threat, in the month to date you've found the time to participate in nearly two dozen different AfDs and DRVs, contributing nearly 100 edits and 60,000+ bytes of text; that's formidable output from someone so strapped for time.

Finally, I wonder if you're under the impression that I'm asking for you to improve articles to GA status before I'll deign to agree they're worthy of being kept. If so, that's nonsense. You are -- or should be, by now -- well aware that it's not necessary in the least degree to "expand and improve" an article "properly" to save it at AfD. You need only find a couple qualifying reliable, independent, third-party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Hell, NRVE doesn't even require that you add those sources to the article -- you need only cite them in the AfD discussion. I can't imagine that being so horribly onerous a task that you'd advocate tossing in more delays into the system to avoid wasting the five goddamn minutes that takes. Ravenswing 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/redirect to town article; fails
    WP:GNG. The "Cape Cod Wave" article (I agree it is questionable, it appears like a blog) was entirely about the "citizen" police academy program (not about the department), which even the author admits the "academy" is a PR tool. The other was the usual small-town "a day in the life of a police officer" article that again was not about the department itself. @Oakshade: and @James500: I have seen you using the same argument in several of the AfDs for Mass. police departments, and I think you do not understand what WP:GNG are. There is no "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" for these police departments, but you say things like "it clearly meets GNG." So something is not right. Elgatodegato (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    WP:ORG: It very clearly states that trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. You have been asked many times to supply the links to these sources you claim meets the GNG, but you have not done this. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It is possible to edit on Wikipedia without having a registered account. (How do you not know this?) It's also possible to commit wikicide because you've burned out, or forget your username because you haven't logged on in two years or decide to register because you are tired of the CAPTCHAs. None of this effects your job of prove the Barnstable Police Department in Massachusetts is notable enough to have its own article. If you are seeing a pattern than per haps it is because multiple are telling you the same thing. If you think I am "a sock" then please go contact the administration to complain. I am sure they can research it fast. Elgatodegato (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oakshade: Stop accusing me of being a sock, or go file a official complaint if you really believe it so much. These are you two choices so pick one. If you continue to accuse me I will report you for harrassment. You are not helping your cause. @James500: that link is broken (it says "Your search - https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Barnstable+Police+Department%22 - did not match any documents.") Please just paste the exact URL like you would to use in a reference in an article - You must know that "the results I found when I googled it" is not acceptable as a "reference". It's 3 seconds to paste the links here. Elgatodegato (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've admitted you've had other accounts and you're supposed to report that as such. Feel free to "report" me (remarkable that someone with a 3 day old account would know exactly how to do that) and I will be happy to describe to whoever you "report" this to the clear evidence you're not a new editor and not disclosing who your other user names are as required. You're also not helping your case countering how this topic passes
    WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Selectively examining the weakest sources doesn't disprove notability. It can't be disproved by a few counter-examples, because that says nothing about the other sources. And it especially can't be disproved by quotes that are taken out of context. So let's examine some relevant results on the first page of results. On the first page of results, this history book looks like perfectly good coverage to me. I can't imagine any objection being taken to that by anyone. This appears relevant, as a law report of a case examining in detail the relationship between the town, the department, and its officers, viz some kind of industrial dispute. "Introduction to Law and the Legal System" is not just a police officer from the department dying in the line of duty (and in his capacity as a member of the department). There is more context that is being ignored in the !vote above. His death, and the circumstances of it and the accident that caused it, was the material facts, the precusor, the cause, the raison d'etre, of a case decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (Commonwealth v Beggren) that would appear to be some kind of precedent. And did I mention that it is in the Supreme Court? The most important court in the state! So it must be ever so important. In any event it was reported and discussed at great length in a law book, and not just any, but an introductory work (implication is that the case is of utmost importance). So the department's embroilment in that case is good coverage. The material in Atlantic Boating Almanacs is not just "how to contact the harbourmaster" (admittedly excluded under "not a phonebook"). It also discusses the police department's boat's patrolling of the Hyannis harbour in summer. And that's good coverage as well. And of course there several more pages of results. I urge anyone !voting to actually look at them. James500 (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since you mentioned it, AfD is in need of root and branch reform, though I'm not invoking that as an argument. James500 (talk) 06:53, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barnstable_Police_Department&oldid=1069234058"