Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article was PROD'd twice, once in 2007 and once today, so I've followed the procedure and moved it to AFL. Reason given was '''Abandoned temp article? Possibly still a copyvio.''' I think it fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:NB as I can't find any independent reviews of the book. The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just added a bunch of refs on it's talk page. Newspaper stories, references from several religions and in various police and related journals international and I've not exhausted web searches. Smkolins (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You added news articles? If you did, they are not showing up.  I removed a link as it was dead.  When adding references, make sure you actually add them.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added them to the talk section. I didn't have time to integrate the references. I thought if the debate included referencing the talk page then people would take that into account. Smkolins (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added "FrontPageMagazine.com." and the "Press release" which was published in a newspaper. Smkolins (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've now added a few more :nzherald.co.nz., Dominion Post, Thaindian News. Smkolins (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Dead references should be replaced with a link to the new URL if the page has moved or to their archived version at http://www.archive.org/ if one exists, rather than being deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment just to reply to this - I know. The when I put it in it wasn't dead. Now it seems they didn't just take down the page but the whole domain the server was running on. Nor was it kept in archive.org though other parts were. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is quite a mess. The talk page seems to be a duplicate of the original article. Several of the references on the talk page are of dubious value and at least one is a mirror of the article. The article itself is missing appropriate references. It may be a valid document but at this point I don't see it as notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree the article is not what it should be. As the primary editor who created the article all I can say is that I was distracted by the source - I've been working in wikipedia for years and hardly seen anything of the kind (and the inter-religious warfare in wikipedia could learn no little bit from such a work - I once tried to clean a religion and racism article which was the target of endless feuding and it re-degenerated.) The talk page was an attempt to fix the article and if you compare the histories you'll see the original article was much different than the talk aspect. I thought I checked for circular referencing in the sources I just posted this morning but if I made a mistake just note it. Or point it out to me and I'll note it on the talk page. I thought I trimmed out dubious sources but I'd welcome instruction on appropriateness. I thought newspapers and journal refs were sufficient for notable sources. Smkolins (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete . This book was produced in response to a growing trend within Australian Police Services to deliver culturally appropriate, customer oriented services to all Australians, and as such it's neither a truly scholarly nor a widely read text that has any chance of meeting the book notability guideline. Since when do police deliver "customer oriented services"? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, merge into Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau might be a good option. That is the agency that published this and similar texts of police instruction in Australia, and this entire text could fit into that article without being too out of place. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind merging if the end result of concensus is that it doesn't deserve and article of it's own. Smkolins (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that someone considered this encyclopedic makes me sick. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no references, Google news search yields no results, and a general Google search yields online encyclopedia entries and stuff to unrelated to the article.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is exactly an example of when police might be able to bring informed treatment of religious communities. As for references I found some. It wasn't even that hard. An example
 * Some Reflections on Reported Crime Rates in the Chinese and Vietnamese Communities in Australia which is the lead article in the Journal of Asian Association of Police Studies Asian Policing, Volume 4. Number 1. September 2006, by Dr Wing Hong Chui School of Social Science The University of Queensland & Dr Peter White School of Social Work and Social Policy The University of Queensland, and it was mentioned by members of Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Wiccan, and Shinto organizations or individuals primarily through statements in news agencies. The last reference,

Social cohesion in Australia by James Jupp, J. P. Nieuwenhuysen, Emma Dawson and published by Cambridge University Press, 2007 refers to the organization which published and distributed 50,000 copies of the first edition along with comments (if google books will let you read it.) And New Zealand's police force development a similar work based on the same kind of effort which is also detailed in the references I found. Smkolins (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that a publication is a reference work distributed to police is not enough to qualify as notable per WP:BK. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've redone the page dramatically and included several references including it being picked up in the literature of police forces internationally and much other further work. Perhaps more to come but I've got other things to do now. Smkolins (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the New Zealand publication should be considered an "edition" of this Australian publication as this article now says, as opposed to being a different publication which happens to cover similar themes? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - As for the language of the New Zealand publication being an edition of the Australian works I don't see a problem in the language but editors are free to make improvements. I called it a publication and then speak of New Zealand's edition (as they make a point of calling the publication the "1st edition". There are also notes about a revised edition of the New Zealand publication. Additionally there is an overlap in the development history between the Australian and New Zealand works. The acknowledgement section states "New Zealand Police gratefully acknowledge the support of the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau (www.apmab.gov.au). Their provision of a number of photographs and text on which to base the New Zealand version of this publication is greatly appreciated." Smkolins (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps it qualifies as a widely-used textbook (for police). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has been improved since this AfD was started, but it still fails to prove notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the policy that applies Wikipedia:Notability_(books) this is clearly a government publication - of the available choices it seems closes to an academic publication (though not identical.) All editions seem to be missing an ISBN, but it's listed in the national library and in several specialized libraries and has affected or been referenced in several branches and divisions of Australian government (from the court system through to the military as well as subsequent committee work on revisions to laws.) Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) is difficult to apply because it's entirely geared to individual professors. But the idea communicated, it seems to me, is the question of reach of impact. I've noted the publications reach across government departments and branches as well as countries and the professional literature of the field. Smkolins (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - For all the reasons mentioned above. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Look like the consensus is to delete.... There was some comment to move content to the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau article - that ok? Smkolins (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Guide to deletion, which is linked to from the AfD template in the article, "AfD participants should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally, before the debate closes", so no, it's not OK. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has changed a great deal since the beginning. Perhaps if people took a second look at it more would be inclined to merge rather than just delete. Or even keep.Smkolins (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Echoing the sentiments of Smerdis of Tlön, since when do police provide "customer service?" They are police not human resource people, public relations people, or courtesy clerk providers at Wal-Mart.  I am still having trouble finding nobility on this text as a whole.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - consider how the military has to take into account norms of societies they themselves have gone to in order to convey a sense of being supportive and interested in their welfare. Consider neighborhood policing. Does that make this more relevant? Smkolins (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - in my view, sufficient references to reliable sources have been added to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the references that have been found support notability. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too many references that are trivial and not enough that are significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. 29 references; not all of them are independent or offer significant coverage, but enough do to pass WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.