Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodmin Borough Police

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 Bodmin#Bodmin_Borough_Police. Existing section. Nothing sourced to merge. No sources or policy-backed rationale for keeping. czar 21:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodmin Borough Police

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. One of 178 police forces in the UK between 1836 and 1866, this was a two-man police force. Every village in every country has or had similar police forces, nothing special or exceptional about this one. Routine coverage of the Bodmin police doing something during these thirty years is bound to exist, but specific indepth coverage seems to be lacking. Fram (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cornwall County Constabulary. Unreferenced, this article makes no claim of notability. I don't think there will ever be enough sources about this short-lived minor police force to pass GNG. This indicates the local police were subsumed into the county police which is where the subject can be addressed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree. I believe all Britain's former municipal forces are notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: you may well believe that to be the case, but without any evidence that this is notable under WP guidelines, your opinion will normally be discounted by the closing admin anyway. Do you have anything to support your keep? Fram (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not bureaucratipedia. Nothing is set in stone and opinions do count on AfD. You and I have both surely been here long enough to know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions which boil down to ILIKEIT, a claim of "notable enough" without any evidence to support this, normally don't count in AfD and are routinely dismissed by closing admins. Claims that something is notable should be based on osurces, not on "I believe". Fram (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hint, but issuing such "advice" to a fellow admin and long-term editor may be taken as somewhat patronising! I know how WP works as well as you do and if I wish to express an opinion I shall most certainly do so. I do not require the nominator to inform me what is or is not going to be dismissed by the closing admin (and neither does the closing admin). Thank you for your time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you would dismiss your own "keep" if you were the closing admin. And giving advice should be done indiscriminately of who the advisee is, there are enough examples of long-term editors not knowing (or caring about) some policies and guidelines, and letting these sit unchallenged only because they are e.g. an admin gives a very bad impression to less experienced editors, who may either then follow the poor example or don't understand why their opinion would be challenged and/or dismissed, while that of an admin would be left alone. Fram (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- A redirect to the county constabulary seems inappropriate, despite its later merger to it. It might be more appropriate to merge to Bodmin Borough Council, as it was its watch committee that was the police authority, or rather since we do not seem to have such an article Bodmin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:07, 15 August 2016 (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.