Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety


 * 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. Overall consensus is to Keep, Those wanting Merge should obviously discuss it at the talkpage. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable department. Only 2 citations. Page basically just list the mission of the department (WP:PROMOTION) and then a WP:UNSOURCED list of the divisions of the department (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP its the largest public safety department in the united states.... pretty notable. Trains other departments on the public safety model and has been noted in the congressional record for theur successful use of the public safety model Zlassiter (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable police/fire department, if for only its unique status as both. Its 1983 formation from the separate police and fire departments predates Google's newspaper archiving, but the Kalamazoo Gazette published literally hundreds of articles about the department (note that number does not include the hundreds more about what the department does, fighting fires and doing law enforcement).  It was a politically contentious issue for several years.  In addition, there have been major scandals in the department (a LT addicited to crack and hookers and stealing evidence from the evidence impound, among others) These have received coverage in newspapers.  The information does not have to be in the article or the references easily locate-able on Google for notability to attach.  I am not in the Kalamazoo area to search out the sources anymore, but they are there. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to meet basic notability standards. -- Jayron 32 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kalamazoo, Michigan. Of the page's three refs, one is a directory listing, one a YouTube video and the third is not about the department itself; fails WP:GNG as a standalone article.  Mini  apolis  21:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm with . That seems like a good compromise. --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't about compromise its about consensus. I looked through the articles you have created and am shocked you called this department not notable when I looked at some of the other departments which are much smaller that you are creating articles for. Zlassiter (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - did some quick google searching and made some significant contributions to the article on just 20 minutes of looking around. Quite a bit of notable things about this department that I didn't even know about and I live in Kalamazoo. Looking through Google news shows results about this department from sources around the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.16.122 (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. Those arguing for deletion have only addressed the sources presently cited in the article. But NRVE says that if adequate sources exist, it is not necessary that they be present in the article. As an obvious redirect to the article on Kalamazoo, the page is not even theoretically eligible for deletion, and should not have been nominated (WP:R). James500 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks to be a large enough department to merit an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 3 June 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.