Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Capitol Police


 * 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 redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement . I'm giving more weight to the comments made after two sources were presented, and with that in mind, this is essentially unanimous to redirect. Obviously, this can be revisited should additional sources be found. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Florida Capitol Police

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I attempted to boldly redirect this article to its parent agency (FDLE), where there is already content covering it. That edit was reverted. Fails ORG. Reinstating the redirect would be a satisfactory outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. No, let's be honest here, what you tried to do was delete content by redirecting without incorporating any of the content into the parent article. That is not acceptable. I have no problem with a redirect, but not without a merge incorporating relevant information in a separate section. Maybe the Florida Capitol Police is not notable enough for its own article (I'm not convinced it isn't, but I won't oppose a merge and redirect), but it is certainly notable enough for its history to be recorded somewhere on Wikipedia. Just deleting it is doing no service to Wikipedia or its users whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I can not see any reason for deletion or merging at this time. It is a good article with a lot of good info. However the article needs sources. That however is no reason for merging etc.BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete.Has anyone notices that there is not a single third party reference?  DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The website of an official agency is a reliable source for basics like history and organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is irrelevant: Without third-party reliable sources, this fails WP:V, a core policy. Government authorities are not exempt from this requirement.  Sandstein   17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is irrelevant+ what kind of rubbish is that? Notability is everything. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as these are quite rarely kept or even improved sufficiently for their own convincing article; none of this suggests the needed substance, and as such, could simply be mentioned elsewhere if needed instead. SwisterTwister   talk  21:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement without prejudice against undoing the redirect if substantial coverage in reliable sources is found. Here are two sources about the subject to satisfy Verifiability: The article notes: "TALLAHASSEE — The Capitol Police, along with seven lobbyists, joined forces in thanking two lawmakers for a law that changed the name of the security force. A party for Reps. Darryl Reaves, D-Miami, and Everett Kelly, D-Tavares, was attended by about 100 lawmakers, staffers and a few lobbyists. The reception held last week was given to thank the two legislators for a bill they sponsored changing the name of the Division of Safety and Crime Prevention to Capitol Police, Kelly said. Kelly's son, Steve, an officer with the Capitol Police, said he collected some of the money for the party, but did not solicit it." The article notes: "The FDLE oversees the Capitol Police. The House and Senate sergeants-at-arms staff man the doors to committee meetings and House and Senate chambers.Those wishing to sit in the public galleries for a session of the full House or Senate will have to pass through a metal detector and relinquish their gun if they have one, House Sergeant at Arms Ernie Sumner said. They will be referred to the Capitol Police, who have lock boxes where the weapons can be secured. But metal detectors will not be used at committee rooms. Sumner said the Capitol Police will provide him and his Senate counterpart, Don Severance, with a description of anyone legally entering the building with a concealed weapon. Then, if it looks like someone who might be carrying a gun is headed into a committee room, Sumner said his staff will remind them about the law prohibiting weapons in places where lawmakers are meeting."Cunard (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RS aren't just here to verify basic facts, but also to establish notability--that is why we are here. Government agencies do not have independent notability. My colleague has established that a few references exist, and for me that's enough to support Merge/redirect here (instead of delete), with the caveat, in case this ever comes up again, that a significant number of sources providing significant discussion will be required to re-establish this as an independent article. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I agree with you that the sources I found are enough for verifiability but not enough for notability. Cunard (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement I am unable to find enough references to show that the organisation is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (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.