Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Marin Police Authority


 * 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. There is no consensus here about this article, while some of the delete arguments are quite strong, I don't see a consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Central Marin Police Authority

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

miniscule police dept, article shows no indication its notable, only that it exists. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As a plausible redirect to the area in which it is located, this page is not eligible for deletion and should not have been nominated (WP:R). Since this page has no prospect of being deleted, redirection does not require an AfD, and continuing this AfD would be a complete waste of time, this AfD should be immediately closed on procedural grounds. "It's small" isn't a valid argument against notability. Whether the article indicates notability is irrelevant, as notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. There are, in fact, in particular, in excess of 130 sources in GNews (and more than 170 for "Central Marin Police") and 12 in Highbeam (28 for "Central Marin Police"). So it is far from obvious that this isn't notable. James500 (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The authority has 58 employees, of whom 45 are sworn. Its budget for this year is $10.3 million: . James500 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that this department is the result of the recent merger of the Twin Cities Police Authority, and the police departments of Corte Madera, Larkspur and San Anselmo. Accordingly, sources that refer to those organisations contribute to the notability of this one, because they are now parts of this one. James500 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having now considered the sources turned up by former names of this department, it is now clear to me that it does satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This agency does not satisfy GNG. Most of the hits found by all that searching are passing mentions, as in "the chief of the Central Marin Police Authority said..." or "so-and-so retired from the Corte Madera Police Department." I found only one reference which was actually about the agency, and it like most of the others was from a small hyperlocal publication, Marinscope Community Newspapers‎. Thus there is not significant coverage from independent reliable sources. As for redirecting, since the agency serves three (and a half) towns, there is no obvious target for a redirect. It can be already is mentioned at the articles for each of the four constituent towns, but this article should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This history book alone constitutes significant coverage, without considering the other sources in GBooks and elsewhere. The fact that the department serves four towns is not a valid argument against redirection as we can redirect to the county in which the four towns are all located, namely Marin County, California (that is why its name refers to "Central Marin"). This target is exceptionally obvious. James500 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- fails GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 05:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IGNORINGATD explains why that is not, in of itself, a valid argument for deletion. Some explanation should be given as to why you don't want to redirect/merge the page to Marin County, California, or some other target. (The relevant policies etc include ATD, BEFORE and PRESERVE). James500 (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Marin County would be inappropriate, as this is not a county agency, nor does it serve the entire county. Saying "redirect" to "some other target" is a worthless suggestion; redirect is only an option if there is a valid target and the subject is mentioned at or otherwise directly related to the target. In the absence of such a target, "redirecting" is an empty idea. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether the police authority serves the whole county or part of the county is irrelevant. The "Central Marin" area is clearly a sub topic of Marin County, and if it does not have its own article, everything specifically about it goes in, and is redirected to, its parent topic, Marin County. A geographical area is always a valid sub topic of a larger area that wholly includes it. Another way of looking at this is to say that the authority's jurisdiction is within, or activities take place within, etc, the boundaries of county. The words "some other target" were not meant as a suggestion that one can !vote for redirection/merger to an unspecified target. They were included because a !vote that argues an article should be deleted merely because its topic is non notable is employing an invalid argument. In order to be valid, the !vote must positively assert that the editor has looked for possible targets and found none acceptable (he is required to search by BEFORE). If the !vote contains no such assertion, the closing admin is entitled to infer that the editor has not conducted that search, or even considered ATD (which he must consider by the deletion policy) and accord his !vote zero weight as a !vote for deletion (but not as a !vote against keeping as a standalone article, which is not the same thing). It is immaterial whether a specific target is mentioned in the AfD as all topics have one or more parent topic or topics, to which they can potentially be redirected. In a case like this it is obvious that there will be broader topics in policing, as well as geographical articles like Marin County. It might have been clearer if I had said "any other target" rather than "some other target". James500 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My !vote needs no extrapolation. This organization fails GNG. Fail, fail, fail. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH, only trivial mentions of the department, no source discusses the department itself. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A trivial mention of the department is discussion of the department. Brevity and irrelevance are not the same thing. James500 (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A trivial mention is a trivial mention, the guideline expressly distinguishes trivial mentions from in-depth coverage. I quote from WP:ORGDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." James500, I suggest you read and try to understand the guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.     There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Central Marin Police Authority to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I have sourced and expanded the article. Cunard (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Cunard, but this is WP:ROUTINE press announcements of local government departments' activity in local newspapers. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Press announcements of local government departments' activity in local newspapers are typically the sources used in these kinds of articles about local government departments. Per postdlf below, "the underlying purpose of notability guidelines, both to ensure that sufficient verifiable information exists for a topic and to guard against the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion, doesn't apply, or if it does apply at least not with the same force as if this was, for example, a private security firm rather than a taxpayer supported law enforcement agency". Cunard (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that we're dealing with a unit of government here, and one that has law enforcement powers at that, I question whether a strict application of notability guidelines makes sense here. Nothing in WP:ORG that I can find expressly discusses government agencies (which are also not mentioned in the list of what qualifies as an "organization"). And the underlying purpose of notability guidelines, both to ensure that sufficient verifiable information exists for a topic and to guard against the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion, doesn't apply, or if it does apply at least not with the same force as if this was, for example, a private security firm rather than a taxpayer supported law enforcement agency. And considering how we're dealing with guidelines rather than policies, I think we're fine just saying "we're not going to apply notability here" (and that's assuming GNG is not met, which some above contest), but regardless, preserving coverage of this kind of topic is an ideal WP:IAR situation. There is then still the choice of whether such government agencies should be documented in the form of standalone articles, within articles on the communities they serve, or within articles (or even mere lists) covering all agencies of the same type within a state. Sometimes all of those may be appropriate, sometimes not. While there may be a reasonable argument here that there is not sufficient content to merit a standalone article, the absence of a single merge/redirection target for the title, which is a reasonable search term at the very least, weighs towards keeping it as is, at least until such a target can be identified or created. Outright deletion because "there are four articles to which it could be redirected and we can't choose only one" is simply not reasonable. So keep without prejudice to merging/redirecting. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well spoken. I believe that since the subject meets Verifiability and has received the "significant coverage" required by Notability. But I also strongly agree that "the absence of a single merge/redirection target for the title, which is a reasonable search term at the very least, weighs towards keeping it as is, at least until such a target can be identified or created." Cunard (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not that the police authority would try to promote themselves, or misuse Wikipedia for any purpose. The problem is that there are one, two or more law enforcement agencies and a myriad of other local government agencies in any populated place. They are very much run-of-the-WP:MILL. Although they are not specially mentioned, the ORGDEPTH notability rules must apply to them. An organization that is mentioned only in a local (their hometown) newspaper, doesn't pass. Two of your sources are the announcement of the consolidation of several local police forces into one part-county-wide force, the other two mention that they agrred upon central dispatch with the local sheriff's office. That's WP:ROUTINE. It interests the local residents, nobody else. No in-depth coverage on the police force itself has been found. Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The problem is that there are one, two or more law enforcement agencies and a myriad of other local government agencies in any populated place." Yes, many populated places have multiple local government agencies. They should at a minimum be listed within a relevant article and their names preserved as redirects. I don't know of any town or city (in the U.S. at least) that has organized multiple police departments within its boundaries, however. But even if so, then that one populated place would be an obvious merge/redirection target for those multiple law enforcement agencies if it's decided they don't merit standalone articles, and any article on a municipality or other jurisdiction should cover its public services and government. Here we have one law enforcement agency covering four populated places, and so can't favor any one of them for redirection. It would be absurd to say we must delete a potential redirect because it is relevant to four articles rather than just one. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The obvious target would be Marin County, California. Anything that is bigger than town or citywide, can be mentioned in a county's article, even if it is something not present in the whole county, but only part of it. Kraxler (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's been disputed above, and is in any event an editing decision. Regardless, you !voted for deletion; have you changed your mind? postdlf (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (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.