Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancaster Community Safety Coalition


 * 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 Lancaster, Pennsylvania. done the redirect so merge away Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lancaster Community Safety Coalition

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I deleted this article as an uncontested PROD. The article was then undeleted by another administrator about 15 minutes later, so this is mostly a procedural nomination. I did not tag the article originally, just for clarification. I am going this route (contesting the article's undeletion, I guess) because I usually do a bit more digging than normal before deleting old articles via PROD, and I arrived at the conclusions I list below.

I do not think this organization meets the general notability guidelines, as it is not the subject of significant third-party coverage.

A Google News archive search returns seven pages of results, but nearly all are links to services which archive local (to Lancaster) newspapers' stories. The other sources are mainly writing about the fact that the city is under nearly total camera surveillance, which is (was?) unusual in the United States. Some write about crimes/accidents that were caught on the cameras. They do not write about organization itself, but mention it largely in passing as the body that oversees the cameras' operation. J.delanoy gabs adds 14:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, it is unusual for a local organization to be notable. However, this one has a good deal of coverage.  If we exclude the local paper, there are 14 news stories that mention it, including this LA Times story.  Now, I will concede that the coverage is technically about the results of the organization's activities and the the organization itself.  However, to me the two are one in the same - an organization that does notable stuff is notable.  As such, I say keep.  It wouldn't make much sense for the article to be titled "Video surveillance in Lancaster, Pennsylvania" - the organization behind the surveillance is a more logical title.  However, a reasonable alternative is to merge the material into Lancaster, Pennsylvania where it is already partially covered in the  Lancaster, Pennsylvania section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep seems borderline buit does seem to be notable through 3rd party coverage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete should be merged into Lancaster, Pennsylvania's article, where it will get far more readers than if its own obscure article. Considering the fact that there are multiple Lancasters in the world, as well, this regional-centric article could serve to confuse readers.Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: delete and merge isn't an option. We can disambiguate it if a 2nd notable "Lancaster Community Safety Coalition" every arises.  (The title is the proper name of the organization; the fact that it contains a city's name in its title is not sufficient reason to change the title in and of itself.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:Why can't the information just be included in the surveillance section of Lancaster, PA?Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be merged there, but if it the article can't be deleted. Instead, a redirect must remain in place (along with certain other steps taken) to properly document where the material came from.  See: WP:MERGE and Help:Merge for further information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Merge per Abductive. Phaffo (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the sources indicate that this org is notorious for one thing only; street cameras. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:44, 18 August 2009 (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.