Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Barnstable Police Department: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:42, 8 May 2015 editElgatodegato (talk | contribs)87 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:12, 8 May 2015 edit undoJames500 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers80,268 edits Answers.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 20: Line 20:
*Keep per Oakshade. "Small" and "unreferenced" are not valid arguments for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG due to the many sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Even if it wasn't notable it would, like all police forces, be ineligible for deletion as a plausible redirect to the area it polices (WP:R), and with content worth merging. At least some of the participants here should read NRVE (sources need not be cited if they are readily findable with search engine) and BEFORE (you have to look for them). ] (]) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC) *Keep per Oakshade. "Small" and "unreferenced" are not valid arguments for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG due to the many sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Even if it wasn't notable it would, like all police forces, be ineligible for deletion as a plausible redirect to the area it polices (WP:R), and with content worth merging. At least some of the participants here should read NRVE (sources need not be cited if they are readily findable with search engine) and BEFORE (you have to look for them). ] (]) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::*'''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." ] 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ::*'''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." ] 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::*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. ] (]) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:*The fire districts that are the subject of the other AfD mentioned above are also notable. ] (]) 00:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC) :*The fire districts that are the subject of the other AfD mentioned above are also notable. ] (]) 00:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''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. ] 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC) *'''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. ] 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::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 ].--] (]) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ::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 ].--] (]) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::@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.
*'''Delete/redirect''' to town article; fails ]. 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. {{ping|Oakshade}} and {{ping|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. ] (]) 19:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC) *'''Delete/redirect''' to town article; fails ]. 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. {{ping|Oakshade}} and {{ping|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. ] (]) 19:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:*In truth, GNG is an entirely subjective test as it does not supply a meaningful definition of "significant". Your opinion that the coverage is not significant is exactly that: ''your'' opinion (which ''I'' consider a wholly implausible interpretation that is unlikely to shared by more than a very small number editors, assuming you've looked at the sources in GBooks). You might be suprised by other opinions such as that in ]. And there are other sources beside the two you mention. Look in Google Books if you have not done so already. The link is right at the top of the AfD next to "find sources". ] (]) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:12, 8 May 2015

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 Misplaced Pages article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Your only deletion rationale is "I don't really see how a police department in a small city can merit a Misplaced Pages 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)
I nominated the article for deletion, not Zackmann08. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Got confused with the indenting. Sorry. The point about WP:GNG is standing though. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Not any more. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@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)
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. You were the editor who placed that "citation needed" tag there. 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:HEY). A formatting error (which now no longer exists) of a source is completely irrelevant to WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade. "Small" and "unreferenced" are not valid arguments for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG due to the many sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Even if it wasn't notable it would, like all police forces, be ineligible for deletion as a plausible redirect to the area it polices (WP:R), and with content worth merging. At least some of the participants here should read NRVE (sources need not be cited if they are readily findable with search engine) and BEFORE (you have to look for them). James500 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
@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.
  • 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)
  • In truth, GNG is an entirely subjective test as it does not supply a meaningful definition of "significant". Your opinion that the coverage is not significant is exactly that: your opinion (which I consider a wholly implausible interpretation that is unlikely to shared by more than a very small number editors, assuming you've looked at the sources in GBooks). You might be suprised by other opinions such as that in WP:100W. And there are other sources beside the two you mention. Look in Google Books if you have not done so already. The link is right at the top of the AfD next to "find sources". James500 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: