Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanpur City 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 speedy keep. Consensus is clearly in favour of "keep" and nominator appears to have withdrawn the nomination. In regards to the move discussion, AfD is not the place/venue for that, please refer to Wikipedia:Requested moves for that, should you wish to pursue a move. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur City Police

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allahabad Police. Every district unit of Uttar Pradesh Police doesn't need an article. In my opinion, the page isn't notable enough on its own, though it can be a possible search term. And, the infobox looks like it has been copied from NYPD, so it should either be merged with Uttar Pradesh Police or deleted.
SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Edit - Also, apparently, the creator of the page is infinitely blocked because of "Disruptive editing / creation of inappropriate pages". SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scope of this Afd is limited to this page so I would I would comment about this page only, not the page creator. This article has an independent reliable coverage by India Today which makes it pass WP:RS. Also Kanpur is one of the most notable Indian city, so the cities law and police administration is also notable. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @SshibumXZ: Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Article creator's currently block is not a justification for deletion. Please don't make similar arguments in any future AFD...

Articles that are weak, but are on notable topics, are not supposed to be deleted. The contributor with concerns over the current state of the article is supposed to use our usual means to trigger article improvement -- like noting their concerns on the article's talk page. You didn't do this, did you?

Exceptions are made, rarely, when repeated good faith to reach a compromise version on an article on a particularly controversial topic are deadlocked.

As Anoptimixtix noted, police departments of major cities are going to be notable topics, as compliance with WP:BEFORE confirms.

Please be more careful... Geo Swan (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Geo Swan:. First of all, thank you for explaining the Wikipedia guidelines, I went through WP:Before and I stand corrected, the article is notable. And would never nominate an AfD before going through the sources from now on. Secondly, I would like to point out that Kanpur unit of Uttar Pradesh Police is the law-enforcement agency of Kanpur Nagar District, not Kanpur City, there's a minute difference between the two, so, shouldn't the article be moved to say, either Kanpur Police or Kanpur District Police?
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 13:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This article is about a department that sees over a city with population of almost 30,00,000. Has enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG as well. I agree with user:SshibumXZ. It should be moved to "Kanpur Police". I will request the move if this discussion is closed as keep. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and has cverage in reliable sources --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:44, 8 September 2017 (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.