Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Industry Registry (2nd nomination)

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 merge to New South Wales Police Force. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Registry[edit]

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

Kept back in 2007, when standards for organizations were lower. This isn't even an organization, it's a branch of a police force with no particular significance I can see. No reliable sources for notability -- just directory information,esxcept for one recent article [1]. I'm not sure that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of official information available to verify the facts of the articleAustralian Police [2][3]. A change in regulations with the consequent threat of mass deregistrations was covered extensively in the New South Wales Press Sydney Morning Herald as are stories of firms circumventing the Registry Sun-Herald. The issue led to formal questions in parliament [4]. Careers websites emphasise the importance of the Registry for security personnel Career Trend. SpinningSpark 11:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark please note that the referenced "Australian Police" is not any official law enforcement agency or associated entity in Australia. See their disclaimer for example. Aoziwe (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the notability criterion. Otherwise, merge with the article on the competent law enforcement agency. This is not worth an article on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps to New South Wales Police Force as a component entity, but this is not suitable for a standalone article as outlined by User:DDG above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Apart from sources provided by Spinningspark, also see [5][6]. Lorstaking (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lacked proper referencing and formatting, so I researched and added to references. Removed one Source that was a dead link. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to New South Wales Police Force, where it already has, only, a mention. Not sufficiently notable in its own right but is a very likely search term. Note that this article is importantly out of date. See the official site. Expertwikiguy please note that your good faith added reference to here is almost certainly not a reliable source. This is not any form of official site. Aoziwe (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2018 (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.