Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Pleasant Police Department (South Carolina)


 * 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 delete. The consensus is that the topic is not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mount Pleasant Police Department (South Carolina)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. coverage is run of the mill in gnews and gbooks. there is no inherent notability based on the size or population served by a police department. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - non notable org, can be covered in Mount Pleasant article —Мандичка YO 😜 07:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am prepared to accept this satisfies GNG. "Run of the mill" is not a valid argument. As a plausible redirect to the Mount Pleasant article, this page is ineligible for deletion and should not have been nominated in the first place (WP:R). I would go so far as to urge a procedural close on that grounds alone. AfD isn't for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what a ludicrous statement, "this page is ineligible for deletion". You tried that on another AfD for a police department that got deleted. Trying to invent some make believe procedural clause fools no one especially a closing admin. And again you fail to provide sources to establish GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. User:James500 has not provided any substantive evidence that this article should be kept nor rebuttal why this article shouldn't be deleted.68.148.186.93 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As that deletion was a violation of the policy ATD, there was no valid counter argument against redirection, and AfD is not a vote, it is eligible to be sent to DRV. It is an outlier, a fluke, a mistake. Not all deletions are correct. Some admins use their tools incorrectly. The guideline NRVE makes it quite clear that I do not have to cite sources that you can find by putting "Mount Pleasant Police" or "Mount Pleasant Police Department" into GBooks and GNews. I'm sure you, LibStar, have already seen the hundreds of sources I've looked at and accepted as significant. The reason you don't accept them is because you construe GNG (which is almost completely subjective) in a more restrictive way than way than me in your subjective personal opinion which is different to mine. It is fairly obvious from your past voting that you expect a much higher level of coverage than I am prepared to accept, and that your opinions are so different to mine that there is no point in trying to convince you. Anonymous user, please don't send me echo notifications from this deletion sorting list: I look at it regularly. You might like to read or re-read the relevant policies and guidelines, as you don't seem to understand what they require me to do. James500 (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

here we go again, long winded rants and again can't be bothered with demonstrating sources. The whole idea that this is ineligible for deletion is a complete falsehood and raises concerns about your competency in AfDs. Like the sun coming up tomorrow, you'll respond with a long winded rant. LibStar (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say is nonsense from start to finish. We know what you think. Now you should let other editors !vote on this, which won't happen if you keep oppose badgering in a way that will frighten them away from this AfD. James500 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE. You're well known for badgering opposing views to yours in afds. The irony. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- Coverage is very minimal, and what there is is pretty run-of-the-mill. Not every workplace needs an encyclopedia article. Reyk  YO!  05:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's run-of-the-WP:MILL, no secondary sources in the article, one is the subject's own website, the other is dead. No coverage of the department can be found anyewhere, only the usual few trivial mentions. Fails alçso WP:ORGDEPTH. A redirect is out of the question because it's not a plausible search item: people dial 911, they don't look up the police department on Wikipedia. Anyway, the would land at the article on the city without any info beyond "the city has a police department"... Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment about redirection is utter nonsense. Of course people look up police departments on Wikipedia because they are interested in things like local history, how public money is being spent, whether public services are adequate and so forth. Not everyone in the world is a rabid anti-intellectual. There are not a few sources (a word that generally means something like "handful"), there seem to be hundreds in GNews and GBooks. A trivial mention is something like an entry in a phonebook, not large chunks of text like this. And that does provide us with something to say beyond "the city has a police department". James500 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 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.