Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police ranks of the United States


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Police ranks of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Purely speculative and theoretical. There is no unified rank structure to police in the United States; each agency has its own, independently decided ranks. Commonalties in rank names is not enough for a full article. Also completely unsourced, though even if they were, it would constitute WP:SYNTH oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Police. Sources are, of course, available such as The Police Organization. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Lack of sources doesn't mean they are unavailable and, indeed, they clearly are. Just because the rank structure is not unified does not mean there cannot be a valid article about similarities and differences (especially when there are so many similarities). Finally, it doesn't have to be WP:SYNTH if it is possible (as it may well be) to find sources that discuss the similarities and differences accross different agencies. IMHO, this article is improvable to a standard where it will be kept and, if it isn't, I will assist in merging it somewhere else.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - I agree that the article needs more sources and that individual police organizations define their own ranks structure but there is no reason why we can't have them all in one list. At least until it gets so big we need to split it. I think the information in general thuogh adds value beyond what would be seen in a merger. --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, an attempt to "have them all in one list" would be, in my view, inherently too large, at which point the place to split the info to would be the individual department articles. Which is where the info already is located. In short, a laundry list article is questionable at best. oknazevad (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Though they may all be different, there are themes and patterns and many smaller communities follow the same pattern. It could be improved certainly but that's not an AFD matter. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And writing about those patterns without sources explicitly discussing them is SYNTH. Really, there any commonality is just typical of Anglo-American military ranks. but even that statement is OR. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that SOME WP:RS exists that will state that pattern, because it's a fairly obvious one... I'll look. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The article has some value and with some more sources and info it could be a decent article. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:31, 16 February 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.