Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies
Appearance
From 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 of the debate was No consensus. Avi 04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies[edit]
Nominated because almost every article this list links to is non-existant, and therefore I cannot see what purpose this article could serve. --NicAgent 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lists are not encyclopedic unless they are a necessary part of an article (to better explain or describe the significance of the article or to contribute to a greater understanding of the article). This list does not do anything to help better understand the main subject matter or the significance of the subject, especially if the articles are non-existent. Agent 86 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - it's not the worst list I've ever seen, but I seriously doubt most of the non-existent articles will ever be created. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - this is an encyclopedia, and this is very very helpful information! I can see the potential for many people to use this as a reference--Blog Mav Rick 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, although, the links aren't connected quite yet, there will be pages spawned that will provide very helpful information on those law enforcement agencies.--Blog Mav Rick 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very useful list, and has been around since June 2005. But it could stand to be cleaned up a bit - way too many red links. Those folks adding red links should work on creating articles (stubs even!) for the agencies they're adding to the list. BrownHornet21 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At least in my ernest opinion, lists of any type on Wikipedia should be mostly of articles that DO exist, and for lists like this, why not simply use Google for that very purpose? --NicAgent 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the list, you will see that most of the red links are only in a few states. Many of the other states have no red links or a good number of links to real articles. Vegaswikian 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At least in my ernest opinion, lists of any type on Wikipedia should be mostly of articles that DO exist, and for lists like this, why not simply use Google for that very purpose? --NicAgent 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete listcruft. not howling mad insane listcruft, but still listcruft Bwithh 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have already used the list to dab some links found by looking at the list. Most law enforcement agencies merit an article and this is one area that editors have not gotten around to yet so the article will appear. While I would rather use categories, there are some cases when using a list is simply better. In my mind this is one of those cases. Vegaswikian 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete useless list with many red links. If the links were created, they would probably be deleted too. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Promising, well structured list. Chicheley 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Law-enforcement agencies are an encyclopedic topic. It should be flagged for red-links, though. Ace of Sevens 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as Ace.--Aldux 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, listcruft. Yes, law enforcement agencies in general are encyclopedic, but a list is just a list. Tychocat 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very interesting subject and just the sort of info I would expect to find here. --JJay 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Use Google or DMOZ for this. Too many red links, nothing there. Sandy 23:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep very informative. An56 04:48, 2 July 2006 (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.