Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Bay Police Department


 * 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   merge any useful content to Oak Bay, British Columbia, but since I'm not certain what would be worth merging this is functionally a redirect closure - history is preserved so the information can easily be merged by more involved editors. There is clearly a consensus that this topic does not warrant a standalone article, but there is no solid consensus as to whether deleting it or merging it is preferable, thus my selected compromise is the redirect/merge. The arguments for keeping this seemed to hinge largely upon an argument that police departments should be considered inherently notable and thus above the need for reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. While that discussion may be an interesting one, it is not the sort of thing that can be covered in a single AfD. Shereth 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oak Bay Police Department

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

Local police department with no evidence of notability and ghits that just confirm its existence. Prod/Prod2 removed on the grounds that, essentially, "other crap exists and more will exist soon." Still not a reason to keep this, no evidence it meets WP:ORG just like the other police/fire/ambulance companies. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Delete as first prodder. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete &mdash; as non-notable article. macy talk 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: I believe the police department is notable. There are hundreds of article about emergency services on here. Why this one has been singled out Suddenly I don't know. The article has exsisted for over a year without any problems. It appears the nominator has an issue with these types of articles in general. It is a valid point that other, less notable, articles are widely accepted here and therefore an article such as this should be allowed. I have looked up many police departments on here for information and know many otheres do the same, that in itself makes these topics notable.EMT1871 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't suddenly and there is precedent here.Some Fire departments/ambulance/police services have been deleted: Articles for deletion/Hamilton City Fire Protection District,Articles for deletion/North Farms Volunteer Fire Department, Articles for deletion/Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Articles for deletion/Floral Park Police Department, Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Police Department, Articles for deletion/Rockland Paramedic Services; two were merged: Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department and Articles for deletion/Wheeling Police Department and another had no consensus: Articles for deletion/Bargo Rural Fire Brigade. That's not an exhaustive sample. it's what was on my watchlist but it's a good sampling. Just because it has existed for a year (or even ten...) doesn't mean it should be kept if it isn't WP:N}notable. I don't have a problem with this article, I have a problem with all articles that don't meet the guidelines. Other poor articles aren't a reason to keep this one. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: There are hundreds of article about emergency services on here. Make a list and watch the AfDs commence.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it - maybe: First up I admit that I am new to this.  Sorry if I have stomped on any wikiprotocols.  As a relatively new wikipedian I am starting to get somewhat confused by what appears to be a split personality in the approach to articles like this within the Wikipedia community.  One half wants an article for everything, the other half wants only notable articles.  I deproded this article in good faith and upgraded it to be a stub.  BUT other than trying to understand where the line is drawn in the sand by the Wikipedia community, I am not fussed about this particular article either way. Peet Ern (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On relfection - should be kept: To me key social entities such as social fabric maintenance entities like police/fire/ambulance are inherently notable, because they have such a key impact on the societies they serve. Not withstanding all the crap elsewhere, the vast number of never heard of by 99.9999999% of the population articles on horse jockeys, note even one hit wonder musicians, almost zero production recordings, who where they sports people, etc., all of fleeting if any relevance, the 100 years of the Oak Bay Police Depertment is vastly more notable.  If anything we need articles like Oak Bay Police Department to stop Wikipedia turing into the worlds buggest fan site for trivia ? Peet Ern (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Neither the existence nor the deletion of similar articles should govern this1. This municipal2 police force has existed more than 100 years,3 it is frequently referred to in local4 and sometimes in national news sources5, has had to deal with some serious crime6 in a usually low crime municipality recently7 and is central to the question in Vancouver Island politics about whether various municpalities, like it, surrounding the provincial capital of Victoria should be merged together8. It doesn't claim to be NYPD, but it does warrant a separate article. -- KenWalker | Talk 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Sources for those claims, please? I found one. Definitely nothing that passes WP:ORG. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Which claims (1-8) would you like sources for? -- KenWalker | Talk 05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it is frequently referred to in local4 and sometimes in national news sources will suffice. That might establish notability, the others don't. I'm not questioning its existence. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: The links to google that Necrothesp provides below cover the local (eg Times Colonist) and national (eg CBC) news sources. -- KenWalker | Talk 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to British Columbia Provincial Police . The BCPP is notable, but one department of it, without any special achievements and without sources which attest to its notability? There is nothing in the article, or in the defenses above, which suggests that it is passes WP:ORG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment BCPP is a former province wide police force that has not existed for decades. The Oak Bay Police Department has no connection with it.  A redirect would not make sense.  -- KenWalker | Talk 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - facts wrong here ? Definitely do NOT redirect to BCPP.  The BCPP has been defunct since 1950? If someone can advise on the relationship, or not, between RCMP "E" Division and Oak Bay Police Department, then there might better way forward?  Oak Bay Police Department might actually be notable because it is one of a small minority of municipal police forces in Canada NOT subcontracted to the RCMP? Peet Ern (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that blooper. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect into Oak Bay, British Columbia. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as I'm concerned police departments/forces are inherently notable, however small they may be. Precedent on AfD is not really an issue - some of us have better things to do on Wikipedia than monitor AfD all the time, actually prefer to create articles than get articles deleted, and don't have the time to add every article in our field of interest to our watchlist, so we're likely to miss the nominations of some articles that should be kept. Some people making comments here also seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that only modern online sources are valid for notability purposes - print sources (like newspapers), historical or modern, are perfectly valid as well, if anyone in Canada could take a look. Also, try searching for Oak Bay Police (or here) on Google instead of "Oak Bay Police Department"! No hits? I think not! Trying some fairly basic lateral thinking on Google searches works wonders - the official name is not always (or even most often) the name used in articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia - it still has to meet the guidelines for inclusion Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally... the google searches you supply only give trivial coverage of the police department. That is, it is mentioned in passing (e.g. "Officer So-and-so from Oak Bay Police said..."), but there is nothing particularly notable about the police department itself that can be established from these sources Fritzpoll (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Oak Bay, British Columbia it does contain information that can be used in that article. 21 officers for 17,000 people? Is that even correct? Regardless, merge and redirect is the way to go I feel. SGGH speak! 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * Keep: Does not need to be of any minimal size to be notable. General Wikipedia guidelines allow for geographic-related topics to be notable, regardless of how small they are. This includes local government agencies (or comparable privately-operated ones) that provide civil services, like police and fire departments, libraries, schools, hospitals, and public transportation. Not each individual location within such an agency (e.g. Northwest Seattle Precinct 3 or Boston Library Mission Hill Branch) is notable, but the whole system covering a municipality generally is (e.g. Los Angeles Police Department, New York Public Library, Atlanta Public Schools) Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a geographic entity such as a mountain or a town. And as can be seen at the debate over Fritzpollbot, not everyone thinks that all geographic places are notable. And many a school and library has been deleted/redirected. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment please look at the AfDs I linked above. While precedent doesn't rule current discussion they highlight the fact that often these are not deemed notable. Large ones often are because they go beyond WP:ORG but in the majority of cases, small gov't agencies are not. Elementary and middle schools are often not notable either, whereas high schools are. Hospitals seem to be the exception to this because they garner enough coverage, Mayberry police departments tend not to. There is no inherent notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are hospitals an exception and who do they garner enough attention from?? I googled Oak bay Police department and came up with plenty of hits. Exactly who does an organization need attention from to be notable? Local press? Regional? State? National?  I think that this PD has enough notability to stay if many hospitals do.EMT1871 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While it isn't concrete, I think part of it has to do with the fact that hospitals tend to treat patients beyond their immediate city/town whereas police departments are limited by jurisdiction. Hospitals then garner the reliable source coverage needed for WP:ORG rather than ghits, which don't necessarily establish notability. Proof of existence!=notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge As per previous comments on this solution. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and protect the redirect but keep history to facilitate merging and/or recovery if consensus changes over notability of police articles. Ask WikiProject Law Enforcement to come up with a reasonable notability guideline for police departments that are sub-organizations of a larger government entity like a city or country.  What they come up with should be somewhere between "they are all notable" and "they must be famous," and should require significant press coverage that comes from more than "just doing their job."  For example, the New York City Police Department easily qualifies on multiple grounds, including being featured as the central theme in multiple television shows and movies, being at the heart of multiple major events, etc.  Likewise, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States and Metropolitan Police Service in London are also clearly notable.  The Los Angeles Police Department is notable but in a bad way.  Whatever the criteria they come up with, if more than a few hundred or maybe a thousand municipal police departments in the United States qualify, the criteria are probably too easy.   However, if more than a few police departments in cities of over a million people fail to qualify, then the criteria are probably too hard. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement with a solitiation to "go to the articles page to help keep this article." 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment: From WP:CORP:
 * Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
 * Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.
 * In this case, the city is the parent organization. Has this police department done something notable that is not common for other municipal departments in this city and not common to similar police forces in Canada?  If so, then I may be persuaded to change my opinion from merge to keep. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless it can be shown to be notable from third-party, reliable sources. I couldn't find any.  Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: In general, I think that police departments should be kept (see User:Pee Tern's vote above), unless they are notably non-notable.  Cf.  User:Dep. Garcia's comment at WP:AfD/Floral Park Police Department. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does notably non-notable mean? If it was notable for its non-notability it would be notable, meaning it wasn't non-notable, meaning it wasn't notable any more....which would make it notably non-notable.  This is quite a puzzler - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also confused, Dep. Garcia said, "Someone should find sources for this. Otherwise, delete it!" Sources confirm it exists, not that it's notable. Simply existing doesn't equate with encyclopedic notability. They're important as lifesavers in the community but as a whole are non-notable outside that area with the exception of large PDs, as have been discussed somewhere above. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, what happened there was that I originally agreed with User:Dep. Garcia, but then I read User:Pee Tern's comment and was persuaded by it. Having thought about it some more, I would not strongly oppose merging the police department into the city. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Police departments in most cases are not generally notable--their functions are usually routine. police departments in large cities probably are notable -- they will have been sufficiently involved in major events. The appropriate unit of aggregation for small governmental units is the basic unit. This town has a population of just 18,000. The content of the article shows the lack of notability--just directory information,. Elaborate article structure, but nothing to say. DGG (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Completely non-notable local police force. The fact that police are "good" or "important" has nothing to do with inclusion on Wikipedia. Subject of article simply fails WP:ORG, and none of the above keep votes address this failure. This should be a straightfoward delete close. Tan   |   39  20:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that WP:ORG is a guideline and not a policy. There is therefore no actual need to address it - it's optional. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people here feel that there is a need. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and even if there was no guideline, the opinions expressed here are valid. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, WP:ORG is a guideline, not a policy. This does not mean we throw it out the window whenever we want. It is a "generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tan   |   39  20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect the article into Oak Bay, British Columbia, the article does have useful information no matter how small an amount and that info should be merged into Oak Bay, British Columbia and the article itself deleted. All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

 * Speedy Keep This reliable source wrote about the topic for 135 pages. We will therefore have no trouble sustaining an article on the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An inspection report? Looks like the British Columbia police had an internal audit and this is the result. Am I missing something? Tan   |   39  20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tan on this one, I can dig up inspection reports, audits, and the like on just about every government entity, non-profit organization, or business on the planet if I try hard enough. While it can be used as a source, it cannot be used to establish face="Papyrus">Tan ]]  |   39  20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - refactored Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence presented that the audit and inspection service of British Columbia is not properly accurate and independent. By its nature, such a report is likely to be more thorough and neutral than a news report, say, since journalists tend to be sensationalist and have a vested interest in selling stories.  Moreover, a report of sufficient weight to be a book is clearly a non-trivial source and indicates that the subject is worthy of notice.  The idea that a complete police department for an area is insignificant seems utterly absurd.  The comments above seem to confuse the idea of notability with the idea of importance.  This PD is obviously not as important as Scotland Yard or the RCMP but it doesn't have to be to be worthy of notice.  We have a fine little article here and I am not seeing the slightest reason for us to delete it as the facts it presents seem reasonably verifiable, neutral and unoriginal.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are serious, you just lost all credibility. If you aren't serious, you just lost all credibility. Take your pick. Tan   |   39  20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be one of those cases where the letter of the WP:V and WP:N policies would indicate it's an acceptable source, but the spirit does not. The spirit of the policies is that something is notable if it gets significant coverage from people who 1) don't have an agenda to push, i.e. 3rd-party, and 2) aren't covering in a trivial or pro-forma manner, i.e. significant coverage that is "optional" on the part of the entity covering it.  While the audit in question is arguably independent, and definately non-trivial, it is very pro-forma - every police department is expected to have audits or similar documents created merely because the department exists.  They are hardly optional.  The same can be said for police-blotter sections in newspapers, a mention of the police department budget requests in newspaper articles that cover city council meetings, etc.  Those don't carry much weight if you are arguing for notability.
 * Nope, even the letter of WP:N says that the source must have no affiliation to the subject to be considered an independent source. If there is an affiliation, as here, then the source shouldn't be used to assert notability Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument, I'll concede that point. But even if it had no affiliation, it would still fail WP:NOTPROFORMA.  I wanted to make that point clear, so a mom-and-pop child-care business couldn't use government reports on it to say "look, we are notable, here are 3 different sources, one from the city, one from the province, and one from the national government, all with significant coverage" when it turns out that in that business's country, all similar businesses have similar government reports.  NOTPROFORMA or some form of it needs to be explicitly added to WP:V.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - I just didn't want someone arguing that it was ok, even within the letter of the guidelines! :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite ok by comparison with other types of sources. News reports tend to sensationalise their subject.  Scholars have a vested interest in their topics, as do the authors of books.  An inspection report is better for our purposes because the inspectors will have an explicit duty to be independent, just as the auditors of a company report have a similar legal duty.  The source can therefore be expected to be reliable on matters of fact and adequately fair on matters of opinion.  As for pro forma, this is only a substantial objection if you can show that it compromises the source in some way.  A company's annual report is a reliable source since it is demanded by law precisely for this reason - so that investors and shareholders may have good information.  Of course, company reports are not perfect but no source is perfect.  And are you the same Fritzpoll who is going to create millions of pro forma article on every village in the world using census data?  You do realise that a census is pro forma too? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm doing at all - I'm actually creating articles from a variety of sources, not just census data. You have failed to address the point in WP:N that sources used to assert notability should not be affiliated with the subject.  My point was not that the data was pro-forma, but that it did not satisfy our independence criterion as stated in WP:N, whcih says, so that you don't have to click through and find it - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject... Fritzpoll (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed the point of affiliation so let me amplify this. WP:N states Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.  The inspection staff of the British Columbia Police Services Division are clearly non-affiliated in this sense because they are (a) not part of the Oak Bay PD (b) not paid by the Oak Bay PD (c) not engaged to promote or otherwise make the Oak Bay PD look good.  Government inspections are usually considered quite challenging since they will tend to be made in a somewhat critical manner, seeking to find fault by reference to government codes and regulations.  On matters of fact, such as the number of staff, their data will be of the highest quality since government bureaucracies are notorious for their meticulous records.  As for the pro forma point, we need to clarify whether the objection is to the standardised format of the document or its supposedly perfunctory nature.  The latter objection seems inapplicable as a report of this size is obviously not perfunctory. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've only started looking for sources.  The huge inspection report seemed ample but since there are objections to this, I have taken a second look and find that there are abundant sources which might be used to source and develop this article.  See, for example, Google Scholar for a selection of good sources.  Since it is now seems apparent that other editors have failed to make any proper search, this AFD proposal is shown to be groundless disruption.  I am therefore changing my !vote to Speedy Keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I looked there as well, with the same search - the mentions are trivial, and do not establish notability. This isn't about having enough to write an article about, it is about whether or not the subject is notable.  I can dig out 12 newspaper clippings that mention me - from them you can get my school, my qualifications, some of myu interests, and even from a view of some of my political perusasions.  With some web sources, we could add to this even further. That doesn't make me notable - the coverage of me is relatively trivial, and the mentions of me are confined to passing mentions within a particular context.  The sources from the scholar search are just like those.  And of course, a lot of them aren't actually about this particular topic.  Notability is not the same as existence, and notability is not the same as having enough sources to write an article about Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Colonel Warden apparently has no grasp on Wikipedia's notability policies, has no inclination to read the rebuttals here, and thinks this is "groundless disruption". I think we can all end arguing with him and safely presume that the closing admin will realize that his arguments have no weight whatsoever. Tan   |   39  13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the hypocrisy? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are here to discuss the article's merits not our own. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (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.