Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal police (Romania)

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 keep. Missvain (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal police (Romania)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This topic is not notable (Does not meet WP:GNG). What the article describes is municipal police in general (anywhere in the world). The author of the article defended it by pointing to other similar articles (WP:OSE). Those articles probably also should be deleted, but need to be evaluated separately. For this to be notable, it would have to be shown that there are reliable secondary sources discussing the topic of "municipal police in Romania" in-depth. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:GNG and WP:NORG are both met. Googling brings up plenty of potential sources: a solid primary source and plenty of secondaries: [1], [2], [3], with more at Scholar - and that's without looking too hard. Overall, this is a disappointing nomination and I don't understand the nominator's rationale. The WP:OSE arguments cut both ways - I don't understand what the existence of municipal police forces in other countries has to do with whether we should have an article on the municipal police of this country. Furthermore, the burden of proof in an AfD discussion lies with the nominator, but the nominator appears to have tried to reverse this in the nomination. ninety:one 20:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the burden of proof in an AfD discussion lies with the nominator, but the nominator appears to have tried to reverse this in the nomination. Absolutely not true! This is a falsehood that is frequently repeated at AfD discussions. The burden of proof has always been with the person adding the content (ie. the article creator). See WP:UNSOURCED and WP:ONUS for more details.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article isn't unsourced anymore and has potential for further expansion. There might be a need for a WP:RM to change the article's title to "Local Police (Romania)". Super Ψ Dro 10:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is not whether the article is great. Its whether sources exist, and there are plenty of sources about all police forces. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly is a notable topic and clearly has the potential to be expanded with plenty of sourcing available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2021 (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.