Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Police Department Mental Evaluation Unit


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles Police Department Mental Evaluation Unit

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article somehow acquired a hangon tag without being nominated for speedy deletion, catching my attention. Surprised to see an 'advertisement' tag on the article, I looked it over - and I have to agree; the page looks very much like a puff piece. I'm not seeing anything here that couldn't be covered in a few lines in Los Angeles Police Department - which doesn't even link to this page. The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but revise the article. Somewhat to my surprise, I concluded that this unit of the police department has independent notability and relevance beyond the parent police department. Among other things, it seems to be considered a model for how law enforcement agencies should deal with people with mental illness. It looks to me like the article was originally created several years ago when the unit got widespread public attention (for example, this article in Newsweek) for intervening with Britney Spears. Some time since then, the article was greatly expanded (and some of the content that indicated notability was removed) by persons whose primary aim was advertising. Much repair and trimming are needed to find the baby in the advertising bathwater, but I believe there is an actual baby in there. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up per Orlady. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 20:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep & Rewrite - Sufficient coverage from secondary and tertiary sources given in article for its subject to pass WP:GNG. Content of article needs improvement to make it more encyclopedic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2011 (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.