Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City Police Department Housing Bureau

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 keep. I'm going to keep this for now based on

assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

New York City Police Department Housing Bureau

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

Fails

WP:GNG
. Article reads in a very promotional manner, even kindly providing a link to official New York City crime statistics. References are all dead links or primary sources from the New York City government.

The article details a division of the

housing projects. There isn't a lot of news about it either; all I can find are crimes they investigated, officers from the bureau who got into trouble, or things that just refer to the Patrol Services Bureau and Transit Bureau. AdoTang (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant branch of a major police force. Plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are? Because from what I see, the page only has two remaining primary sources that are outdated. Also, I'm not sure how a regular patrol division of the NYPD assigned to nine areas is "significant" to the likes of, say, the New York City Police Department Emergency Service Unit, but okay. AdoTang (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are other sources. They are covered in the New York Times, and even scholarly articles. I know it looks confusing because the sources are outdated (just dealt with another topic earlier for the same reason) but it's a legit keep. Just needs to be updated. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:17, 23 April 2021 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.