Talk:Jacqui Cheer

Proposed deletion
I note the proposal to delete this page, but I disagree. (I have an interest; I created it.) I'd suggest that any Chief Officer is worthy of inclusion, just by holding the office - it's a significant public appointment. In addition, this particular officer has a QPM, which is uncommon, and has had an interesting history as chief officer, because of the circumstances of her appointment.

Granted Cleveland is a very small force, but I'm not sure where ypu'd draw the line in terms of a force's significance - population covered? Geographical size? Number of crimes? I know that most Chief Constables don't currently have pages of their own, but my intention is to go through the list on the 'Chief Constables' page, and create (or update) them sequentially.Fulleraaron (talk)
 * I haven't looked at this specific case, but I disagree that a "Chief Constable" is necessarily notable. I'm not going to remove the Prod, but I think the specific history of this appointment might be sufficient notability.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What would you think would make an appropriate benchmark for the relative notability of one CC over another? Onew objective criterion might be whether each CC is listed in 'Whos Who' (which Cheer isn't) but I believe that inclusion is voluntary, so just because someone isn't listed, doesn't mean they aren't notable - they might just be modest, or not want to be included for some other reason. You could also set a threshold of a force size or coverage of a particular number of people or acreage, but then this threshold would necessarily be arbitrary. Fulleraaron (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The obvious criterion is WP:GNG. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)