Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department


 * 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 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no inherent notability for such organizations that I know of, and nothing here suggests that this directory-style article passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge up to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County articles. It's a big department but sources don't seem to be there to support it meeting GNG. Lots of routine coverage but not enough indepth coverage that I can see. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Any public service organisation with well over 2,000 employees (including nearly 1,900 sworn police officers) is obviously notable. It's called common sense. Ludicrous nomination which doesn't benefit the project in the slightest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, pal, and no. See WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read it hundreds of times. See WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BURO. I always find applying those instead of "all rules must be obeyed no matter how stupid it sounds" works wonders for improving Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that following the GNG is common sense. Otherwise just about everything is notable, and the article content little different from (in this case) the police department's press releases and website. I mean, why draw the line at 2000 employees? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * refer to WP:BIGNUMBER. The number of employees in itself is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No organization is "automatically notable." See the guidelines about notability: WP:ORG. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lead of N says that ORG and other SNG can create a presumption that a topic is notable, but cannot work in reverse. ORG has been under discussion on its talk page for some time, and my feeling is that it doesn't reflect consensus in its present form. IIRC, BIGNUMBER is an essay. James500 (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with quoting an essay, especially when you cite unilaterally created draft proposals to back your arguments in AfDs. As usual you will have a long winded response to this. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, clearly notable and meets GNG. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * see WP:VAGUEWAVE. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * how ironic, you've used vaguewave yourself, merely pointing to GNG with zero explanation of how it meets it or indeed why it is strong. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, since you asked this time, instead of merely pointing to a policy...
 * , (2010).
 * 1 156-58 (Jack R. Greene ed. 2007).
 * Trent E. Ikerd, Examining the Institutionalization of Problem-oriented Policing: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department as a Case Study, ProQuest (2007).
 * , (2007).
 * , (1997).
 * I just listed the first five books I found that discuss CMPD in detail. CMPD is widely known in the criminal justice field for its innovative approaches to problem solving and crime, and has been the subject of numerous case studies, like the one by Dr. Ikerd, above. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:GregJackP, I can't really judge whether these do what you claim they do, since for some publication information is missing and I can't even judge whether they are reliable sources or not (esp. the Sumner title). The last two or three look interesting, but I can't see what they say, whether they actually add something or not (and for the third one there is no journal title). If those references were in the article, but more importantly, if the article would reflect what those sources say, it would be an entirely different matter. As it stands now, the article (with the exception of the demographics section) is really nothing but a directory with organizational structure and some pictures of colorful thingies--there is nothing to indicate that it is notable as an organization. I do not believe, pace Necrothesp, that these outfits are automatically notable and thus I see no function for it; having this article does not make the project any better. You, it seems to me, have all the tools in hand to prove the opposite, but with a few titles here that don't mention our topic (I mean the last two ones) you cannot take for granted that others will go, oh, yeah, notable after all. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

- If you have access to Proquest, Ikerd's 300 page report is online there, I believe. I'll see if I can find the ISBN's of the others, but it may take a bit. Will that work for you? GregJackP  Boomer!   20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, I just saw it on Google Books--it's a doctoral dissertation, so it can't carry the weight of a properly published monograph. But you know, the easiest way to convince me (and probably others) is to write some of that content. I will be happy to wait, and I'm sure the closing admin won't have a problem with that either--or, and this would be a new one for me, I don't mind if this whole AfD is put on hold to give you and Necrothesp more time. (Because Necrothesp, you can call me a deletionist all you want, but that's a personal attack and also quite silly, given that I've written over a thousand articles.) Thanks, and I commend your zeal, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Try Trent Eric Ikerd, Beyond "Flavor of the Month": Institutionalizing problem-oriented policing (POP) in the CMPD, 33 179 (2010). (HeinOnline). I see if I can find the others again.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Necrothesp and GregJackP. Although this does satisfy GNG, I think it is worth pointing out that GNG is only part of N, the lead of which says that a topic is notable if it is "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words. It is sometimes difficult to reconcile GNG with common sense. It is itself a subjective and arbitrary looking test. James500 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:ORG. A simple search of gnews would show coverage is run of the mill for a police department, like they apprehended a criminal. Much of the coverage is very local from Charlotte too. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep passes the GNG. Local news sources are still reliable sources, and there are some in-depth stories.   Th e S te ve   03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources presented by above and the many other sources even a cursory search on Google Scholar turns up. Article needs a rewrite though.  J bh  Talk  03:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would just like to ask the deletionists here whether they really think deleting an article on a large, well-known police department is actually benefiting Wikipedia or whether they simply believe that applying the letter (instead of the spirit) of the guidelines is more important than any common sense? I really, genuinely am at a lost to understand their attitude. Always have been. I find it bizarre. Just my opinion, of course, but I believe the guidelines are there to stop rubbish or cruft on completely non-notable subjects clogging up Wikipedia (and I'd be the first to support this), not to keep articles on organisations like this one out of the project. To me that really is incredibly obvious and just because the i's haven't been fully dotted and t's not fully crossed doesn't mean it's not clearly the spirit of this project that we all devote so much time to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep What even is this AfD? Not to wax, but literally every major police department in the U.S. (not to mention others) has a Wikipedia article. Clearly notable, and I'm sure there are thousands of sources that reference this subject.  Jd 027  (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment And I am normally something of a deletionist.  Jd 027  (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thousands of sources? The sources I found are just routine news of what a police department does, arrest criminals, ask the public for more info on a crime. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you are not looking either in the right places or with the right terms. There are plenty of sources. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:43, 25 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.