Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saanich Police Department

Add links
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 was keep. MBisanz talk 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saanich Police Department[edit]

Saanich Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'd hoped not to have to bring this to AfD especially in light of this recent AfD which closed as a re-direct. However my re-direct was reverted with some minor claims of notability added. However the articls cited re: podcasting acknowledge only the PD as a source of being the first podcasting PD. Does that count as verified (simply repeating a first-hand assertion) and if it does, does that establish notability? I'm bringing it here for some discussion since apparently this won't be non-controversial If this closes as re-direct I'd please ask that the admin please protect the re-direct to keep this from being re-created. Thoughts? StarM 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rationale per below.--Cahk (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel this is getting silly - first you said there's no notability so I added 2 'Canada's first' into the article. You are saying how to proof what the PD said is true - this is like saying unless I can find contadictory evidence, this will not be accepted (even a google search finds nothing but SPD). What constitute as 'minor' notability? I looked into other Canadian police agencies (ie. Gatineau Police and Service de police de Longueuil) article (don't even get me started on US agencies - unless rank and salary information considered to be notable) their claim of notability is simply because the PD serves a big population but virtually ZERO information on the article whereas the article on SPD DOES have information so what constitute as acceptable and what's not? Clearly WP:ORG did not specify population as acceptable for notability. The article as it stands now is a stub and I do plan on expanding it as I go, but I feel like the 'notability' issue is being blown out of proportion. ‎--Cahk (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Simply because something hasn't yet been deleted doesn't mean it won't be. Articles are judged independently for notability and because something else is worse, doesn't mean something else should be kept because it's less bad. Re: population, please see WP:BIG. THe issue with WP:ORG is the fact that, The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.. Also: Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead. It doesn't mean there isn't place for the material, it just may not be sufficiently notable for its own article. StarM 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with what you are saying is this: If you look at the history of [1], an admin SPECIFICALLY said the reason to keep the article was 'police department of a large city' which contradicts WP:BIG. Sure, those 2 PDs might receive national attention (as with a million other law enforcement agencies), the article itself does not cite a thing, nevermind notability.--Cahk (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment the opinion was made in one AfD. Doesn't mean it applies to any AfD beyond that. StarM 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now you are just contradicting yourself - If previous AfD doesn't apply to Gatineau Police article, why does the OBPD precedent apply to SPD article? This is one reason I think the issue of 'notability' is being blown WAY out of porportion. --Cahk (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no what I said is one argument raised doesn't necessarily apply to another different debate. Consensus reached in two AfDs about the non-notability of a police department in the same area with a similar level of non-notability can be said to apply. We disagree, that's why I brought it here for consensus. StarM 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct, except so-called consensus changes from time to time depending who wants to weigh in on the issue. Just because they are geographically proximate to each other, that shouldn't mean a applys to b - especially the composition of the article is extremely different from OBPD. When I think about it, your argument will work like this: If Vancouver Police Department was nominated as non-notable, a lot of editors will say it is notable and thus every police forces surrounding Vancouver would automatically be notable because they are geographically proximate?--Cahk (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right, consensus can change. I think police departments for large cities have coverage and have done things that make them notable. I won't say never, but I think it's extremely likely that PDs for cities such as New York, Vancouver, London, LA, etc. and other large cities will never be put to AfD, never mind deleted. However small towns and cities are less likely to have police departments that attract the attention to be notable. I was born and raised in a small town that's only on the map due to its proximity to New York City. It has an article here because of the consensus that populated, census-designated places are notable, however if someone were to write an article for its police force (actually shared with the next village) it would be re-directed or deleted post-haste. There's no reason police forces, etc. can't be covered within the town article and a re-direct put in place for searchers, but in the vast majority of the cases, they're not independently notable. Make sense? Wht do you disagree with? I'd like to understand it better so maybe we can sort this out. StarM 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't disagree with you re: merging info onto the city/town,etc page - what I am objecting here is the wishy-washy application (as I said already, there are TONS of US sheriff/police, etc that are probably not even notable to residents in the next state (nevermind 'national' or 'international' coverage). I also object to the fact majority of those said articles only have rank/salary which I consider to be non-enclycopedic but allowed to be on Wiki whereas this article have plenty of citations and events that I considered to be 'notable' but is subject to AfD. How to determine what is 'minor' notability? Who determines citation are not 'enough' and why some articles were saved just by putting 'stub' tag (as is this SPD article is also a stub). I have no problem in saying that OBPD was not up to standard as finding info has been difficult (but not un-doable by any means), but to compare OBPD to SPD in terms of quality, I feel it's unjustified.--Cahk (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because we're humans and different people participate in different AfDs, you see different opinions. If you don't disagree with the merging, why did you revert this one leading to it coming here. I didn't want to delete it - I wanted to re-direct it. I've nominated many US PDs, as well as Australian and of-late, Canadian. If you don't think an article meets the notablity standards, take it to AfD or merge it outright. Merging doesn't require AfD but it may if it's contentious. Anyone can tag an article for citations or notability and the onus is on editors to provide the materials to refute that tag. That's why things are up for discussion because the sad fact is in many cases, people don't work to save an article unless it's up for Afd. StarM 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, I m saying I don't disagree with merging/redirecting OBPD (but I had to explain my case on that Afd) - this article is very different (imo). As to if AfD brings people to save the article, I think you might want to examine my edits over the past 2~3 weeks on all BC PDs. They are all undergoing major 'facelifts' and information addition so if you are implying I am saving this article because of your AfD, then you might wish to re-consider that.--Cahk (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid article about a current, operational police department. I see absolutely no reason or valid argument to delete this article. MrShamrock (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment existence is not notability. Please see the referenced AfDs which dealt with substantially the same issues. StarM 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, existence is not notability. My comment still stands, I see absolutely no reason or valid argument to delete this article. By the way, the Saanich Police Department is mentioned specifically in 2180 google hits and 22 books. In my opinion, notability is established. --MrShamrock (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the books are false positives, they mention people going to or being taken to the PD, they are not discussing the police department. The valid argument and /reason is in past practice but also the relevant clauses of WP:ORG. But we've made our cases, we'll see what others have to say. StarM 05:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: StarM, I feel that you need to abandon OBPD's AfD - I 'recreated' that article in hopes of expanding it so it doesn't have the elements of what I have right now on SPD - if you compare the two, SPD is far more sourced, informative and 'notable'.--Cahk (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to abandon anything, you do not have complete control of the article, it's up to consensus. More sourced and informative does not mean notable. StarM 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
StarM, the bottom line is that if you're going to delete this article then you may as well delete every article about every police department in Wikipedia. This one is just as notable and relevant as any other such article. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to re-direct them when I find them. If controversial, like this one, I bring it here. The simple fact is most local PDs aren't notable and consensus has shown that over and over agai. StarM 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Saanich, British Columbia and Protect per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to get enough RS hits, including a number of things that seem at first glance to be beyond mere reporting about crimes in the area. Agree that the article's lack of internal assertions of notability and weak sourcing mean it's currently lacking, but it seems reasonable to expect that a good encyclopedia article is within reach. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references that back up the two firsts are both reliable and thus making the department notable for pioneering a new form of crimefighting. - Mgm|(talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note: If I didn't look into the article in detail, I would've made a vote to close this nomination. If the added sources check out, it's an obvious keep, if not, the redirect can be reinstated. Neither result in a deletion, so there's no reason to have a deletion debate. Discussion about merges can be had on the talk page with notifications on relevant project noticeboards (and contacting previous commenters) if participation is lacking. - Mgm|(talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not looking for deletion, I'm looking for consensus and if it's found, then the re-direct to be protected since it's been reverted. The same editor reverted another re-direct resulting in a second AfD for an article -- resulting in the same re-direct close. I agree, I usually don't want to use AfD for re-direction but sometimes it's needed. StarM 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The same editor reverted another re-direct resulting in a second AfD" I didn't 'revert' the re-direct, I actually started the article from scratch and the information were not merely copied from whoever started the article first. Mind you you were the one who started the AfD on that one as well. --Cahk (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes you did. The re-direct was there and you over-wrote it. I was indeed, and consensus agreed both times that it wasn't significantly notable to warrant its own article. In general I don't think local police departments (or ambulance services) are notable per WP:ORG. In most times, they're simple re-directs. However at times editors want a full AfD so I'm happy to bring it here to get consensus. So far Oak bay and Gatineau have both closes as re-direct (despite your comment above that Gatineau was notable simply due to size). I'd prefer not to have to do umpteen AfDs but if you want each one discussed, we'll do it. StarM 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Either you COMPLETELY misunderstood me or you made a typo - I said Gatineau WAS NOT notable and I even prod it - I said the article was saved, by an admin, because of population before and I question that decision and how it relates to notability. --Cahk (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood. I thought you were supporting gatineau pd being kept and using it as a reason to keep this. ANyone can remove a PROD and when Gatineau was re-PRODded I removed it simply because an article can't be PRODded twice (with two declined speedies too. That was one person's opinion, no consensus. Someone thought that made it notable but it likely would not have survived an AfD. StarM 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. All along through OBPD and this AfD, I have questioned many times why that article was kept (esp. been prod before) but it's gone now so case closed on that one.--Cahk (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And you are making that comment when you live in VA... am I missing something? It's like saying since I live in Canada and I never heard of the x amount of police forces in Virginia which makes them non-notable and thus can be deleted away? --Cahk (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Thank you Cahk for your voice of reason. For those who vote deletion, I'd like you to identify your nearest police department's Wikipedia article. Then, justify the article's relevance and notability. Thanks --MrShamrock (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MrShamrock, my concern is not so much about geography but more because of an anon. editor who wrote an incoherent passage in justifying deleting this article but couldn't really show why.--Cahk (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not a sherriff, it's a police department. See Sheriff#Canada. --MrShamrock (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saanich_Police_Department&oldid=1069204692"