Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs


 * 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   speedy keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs

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

No need for this crazy list. All of the people on this list are "red lines" and do not merit an article in the first place. Torkmann (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Redlinks never disqualify an article from existing. The point of having redlinks is the hope that those interested or versed in the history of the DCPD will create stubs or better about those who have lead the department. This is a fine example of a list, though I would suggest a rename to List of chiefs of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia with appropriate shortened redirects like List of chiefs of the DC Police etc. for simplicity and the sake of carpal tunnel.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, it is Torkmann again. Meets every criteria for a Wikipedia list. Well, not all are redlinks, there are four with their own articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable position and a list is an effective means to organize this information. These are the types of people who do have ample sources written about them during their postings in D.C., throughout their lives and in obituaries after their death. I have used red linked entries on other lists to create articles that its astonishes me never existed before and which I only realized might be candidates because I saw the red link as a starting point. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom - As Torkmann didn't give any valid reasons for deletion in his nomination, I'm taking that to mean that there are no good reasons to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you keep "per nom"? I am the nom, and I said delete.  Torkmann (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Sarcasm. She actually explained it.  You didn't give it a good reason to delete even though you were supposed to. Therefore you must think there isn't a good reason to delete it.  She is agreeing with you that there is no good reason to delete it.   It's a sort of joke. (I'm sure explaining it will ruin the comedy.) 66.31.229.247 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you—while I hate explaining my own humor, I did think that I'd made my meaning sufficiently clear in the remainder of the !vote. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alansohn. Dismas |(talk) 08:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. No reason to delete this seems to say it all. -- Banj e  b oi
 * Keep "No need for this crazy list" is not a criterion to delete it. It meets every inclusion criterion I can think of. The fact that the list consists mostly of redlinks is not a reason to delete it either, as an acceptable article could be written about most (if not all) of the people on the list, having the link there is a prompt to someone to create an article, and the list provides useful information about the person even without an article. Hut 8.5 19:36, 31 July 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.