Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Bedford 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 redirect to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Government. MBisanz talk 03:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Bedford Police Department

New Bedford 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)

Non-notable police department in a relatively small city. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preposterous nomination. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin due to the very large number of detailed sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion: it is actually relatively large with budget of $15m) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per James500. Nonsensical nomination as the subjective opinion of the city size in which the topic serves in irrelevant to notability. Plenty of sources indicate passing GNG abound. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete + redirect - first, article is just a skeleton and a bad one at that - there is no intro, not even a link to the actual town, and poorly formatted. One of the only two sections is the address of the police stations. And the article is three years old, so it's not like it's under construction. In no way does the article even attempt to satisfy
    YO 😜 21:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Speedy is out of the question at this point as SNOW is not existing here and there are no slanderous BLP violations. The current state of the article has nothing to do with GNG.
WP:GNG states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
YO 😜 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MILL is only an essay, and it happens to be a load of nonsense that bears no relation to the actual notability guidelines. Coverage of police officers attached to the department, acting in that capacity, is coverage of the department, which is its members. To treat them as a separate topic would be bizarre, because they are obviously not. It is the officers who can't inherit notability from the department. In any event, there are plenty of sources about the department as a whole. And they are not just budget allocations either, though those would be fine as long as they are not published by the department itself. Such as the sources relating to the famous and significant case concerning their minimum height requirement. And I don't need to prove the existence of sources that come up immediately with a search engine. The links are at the top of the page, following the words "find sources". If you don't like the sources that come up, for example, in GBooks, you should go through all fifty of them one at time, and tell me what is wrong with them individually. Or I can return the favour by saying that you haven't offered links to the individual sources to prove the generalisations that you are making. It goes without saying that none of the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) are met. No sizeable paramilitary organisation is going to fail A7, and certainly not a police department. A7 is for articles about editor's pet cats, postman, or local corner shop. It is for topics that have zero chance of being considered notable by any established editor. Fifty sources in GBooks is a clear giveaway that A7 is out of the question. A much smaller number would suffice for that.
WP:MASSNOM is so large that, so far, I have actually barely managed to even !vote in all the AfDs, never mind expand umpteen different articles at once, because the size of the nomination makes that impossible. It would take weeks to expand all those properly, even if I was doing nothing else. James500 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:A7 wouldn't apply as being the police department of the city of New Bedford is a claim to notability.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A7 applies as nowhere in the page is there an assertion of significance. Regardless of whether it qualifies for speedy delete or just delete, it still fails GNG. No organizations are inherently notable (
YO 😜 01:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
"The New Bedford Police Department is a law enforcement agency serving the city of New Bedford, MA". That's the claim to notability. Whether you think it passes GNG or not is a different matter, but it's definitely not a A7 candidate.--Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YO 😜 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's more than "something exists." I guess we differ on what is a claim of significance. I think being the police department in
New Bedford is significant and already A7 doesn't apply. You do not. Speedy deletion is not going to happen here nonetheless. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
YO 😜 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Those words, that you give in italics, do not appear anywhere in
WP:GNG. Nor does it contain any words that could be interpreted as having that meaning, even if one was to use techniques of interpretation to twist the meaning of the words to breaking point and then to some considerable distance far beyond. WP:NRVE says the exact opposite. I see nothing in WP:WHYN that could possibly impugn the notability of this department. (I think it is also worth pointing out that WHYN is at most describing GNG, not creating additional restrictions. What it says would not be, for example, an accurate description of the various SNG. Not that that is a factor here). Please read WP:N more carefully. I don't need to supply anything else to prevent redirection. For your information, this is not, as you suggest, my first AfD; I have participated in 384 AfDs to date, which is a lot more than you have, and I am (unfortunately) so familiar with the relevant guidelines that I can recite them backwards. Oakshade has participated in 2233 AfDs, which is also more than you have. James500 (talk) 21:34, 8 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/New_Bedford_Police_Department&oldid=1079653805"