Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McKinney Police Department (Texas)


 * 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 McKinney, Texas. Consensus that a separate article is not merited and given that the merge has already in effect taken place a redirect has consensus. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

McKinney Police Department (Texas)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

yet another police department article with nothing to show notability. the only sources that could show notability are about policing incidents and not about the department in any substantial way. in order to be considered notable, a pd needs to have substantial geographically diverse sources about IT, not about crime. There is no assumption of notability for a PD. Therefore, they must meet WP:ORG. Not seeing it here, just like most PDs. John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to McKinney, Texas, which presently does not mention the agency. North America1000 06:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Department gained some notoriety some years back (2009) when it requested approximately $5 million in SWAT related equipment, at least part of it under the 1033 program. Incidentally, the Department also had a walk on role in this incident from last year. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Nothing notable. The content is just a list of the subdividions of the agency, which belongs on their website, and of some local crimes, which onoly indriectly deal with the dept.
 * Keep: has up to date info about the police dept's growth and personnel that can't easily be found elsewhere, as well as the general details and some history, all in a simple format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.23 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Obviously, we need a second relist--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to McKinney, Texas. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: For one thing, trying to merge the two articles might risk article bloat. For another, there is some notability as previously noted. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am going to ask the above editor to reassess their position. Selective merges are done all the time. The fact that you are concerned that merging might cause the other article to bloat is somewhat telling of your opinion of what is here, ya?  In addition, if you look at the comments above, the author has confused notoriety with notability. The linked reference does not mention the department, and participation in a government program does not show notability. Thanks.John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Ceannlann gorm above. This is a legitimate subtopic fork, with sufficient sources from local news sources to establish notability along the lines of WP:Local. Deryck C. 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:Local, which is an essay, not a policy, clearly states that things of local interest must meet WP:ORG to be considered notable. There are no sources outside the community for this, so it fails WP:ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NGO, where the "outside the community" clause comes from, is a disputed guideline. The sources in the article are produced by the local community but not by the police department itself, so they do qualify as independent reliable sources of local interest. Deryck C. 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing significant enough to merge, except that it exists. . The content is just a list of the subdividions of the agency, which belongs on their website, and of some local crimes, which onoly indriectly deal with the dept. the coverage, as one would expect, is purely routine and not significant coverage. .  DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The department is not notable in and of itself.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion... see below  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or very selectively merge to McKinney, Texas. Nothing beyond routine local coverage of a run-of-the-mill local government agency, and that's not enough for notability.  Sandstein   15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to McKinney, Texas: Fails WP:ORG; some regional and international coverage, but not enough to fulfill WP:AUD. Even locally, it is mostly passing mentions. Esquivalience t 13:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AUD is a mess, has been under discussion and is likely to be deleted. James500 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to McKinney, Texas: As mentioned before, the department is not sufficiently notable in and of itself to warrant a stand-alone article, but having it as a redirect to the section in the City's article makes sense.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As an obvious redirect to the article on the City of McKinney, this page is not eligible for deletion and should not have been nominated (WP:R). James500 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would I be correct in suggesting that all the arguments put forward so far for deletion or redirection seem to boil down to the mere fact that the article exists in the first place? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes. As I stated in my nom, very few police departments have the requisite detailed coverage of the department themselves.  By nature, what the cops do is pretty much just local interest, and we do not cover strictly local interest topics.  I would like to see a more specific notability standard for municipal departments such as police and fire, and have attempted to start discussions at at least one Wikiproject on the subject, but it went nowhere. John from Idegon (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against "strictly local interest topics" per se. A proposal for a "local interests" notability guideline of general application was roundly rejected. There is an exceptionally vague guideline concerning organisations, but it doesn't appear to reflect consensus, which means that we don't have to follow it. At this time, I am not in favour of discounting sources only because they are "local". I find the suggestion that the activities of police officers are "by nature ... pretty much just local interest" to be wholly implausible, as those activities include, amongst other things, using and threatening serious violence. James500 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to McKinney, Texas per above. Not enough coverage for a fork. The bulk of the content here is unsourced or routine. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:25, 1 May 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.