Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:41, 9 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)

• Delete not notable and no sources. Also, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fire districts in Barnstable, Massachusetts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs)

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)

• Keep - Serving a city of 45,000 is significant (The Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) serves a population of half that). If the topic is the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, then it passes WP:GNG. These are just from the last couple of months. --Oakshade (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Response: The size of the population is not relevant here. The difference is that the Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) is obviously notable due to recent news events. Also the page actually has context with sources. There is not a single source on the page for the Barnstable Police Department. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:34, 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)

• Delete due to the lack of notability and sources. The only actual link to the police department is its official site. Wikih101 (talk) 15:38, 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• The fire districts that are the subject of the other AfD mentioned above are also notable. James500 (talk) 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. 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. James500 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Actually WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I love when editors add on their own subjective wording. I'm extremely familiar with WP:GNG and have been editing here and working with GNG for almost ten years thank you. I see you just created your account 3 days ago. (Either you're a complete novice or a sock. - I'm guessing sock due to your extremely well executed AfD establishing on your first day of editing) That Cape Cod Wave article (that is a reliable source per WP:RS) is very in-depth and is about a major function of the department. Byt stipulating "even the author admits the "academy" is a PR tool," you're actually demonstrating the in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. The "other" article, which I suppose you mean the The Barnstable Patriot one, is a very in-depth article about a Barnstable Police Department unit. Just by saying "fails WP:GNG" doesn't make it so. Sorry, it passes WP:GNG and so far that has been demonstrated.--Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Oakshade: I'm not "a sock" (rude accusation). I have been on and off Misplaced Pages for many years, and in the English wikipedia I always try to help people to fight to keep pages from deletion because they need translation. If you have proof I am a sock then go to the administration and demand an investigation. Your comment (that because the blog wrote that the academy is a PR tool confirms that the department is notable) only confirms that you don't understand what GNG is and are trying to create a distraction by accusing me. @James500: Yes, of course I looked for sources. They do support that there is such a thing as the Barnstable Police Department. There are references to people who worked there, references to where it is located, that you can call their phone number if you have an issue with your boat and need to reach the Harbormaster. These references are quite suitable if someone challenges that there is a Barnstable Police Department by putting a "Citation needed" tag on the Barnstable, Massachusetts article. There is not a single source that supports the notion that the police department is significant enough to have its own article. Do you understand this difference? Please take some time to review 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)

• So you created your account just 3 days ago, yet you're now claiming you've "been on and off Misplaced Pages for many years." So what is this other account? Per WP:SOCK, you need to disclose your other account. --Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'm now noticing a remarkable similarity in style and interests with another user (who coincidentally helps articles of a certain region and language "because they need translation") in just the first 3 days of your account's existence.--Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is possible to edit on Misplaced Pages 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)

• So are you going to disclose your other account(s) as required by WP:SOCK? --Oakshade (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Elgatodegato: I am familiar with ORG. In my opinion these sources (there are on the order of thirty) are, taken together, not "trivial or incidental coverage". That is my opinion. I appreciate that you have a different opinion, I just don't agree with it. James500 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates