Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Security


 * 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 no consensus. While it doesn't seem like outright deletion is called for, consensus seems to support trimming this down to something like Public safety, or even merging/redirecting there. If someone wants to go for it, this discussion should show there's not strong support for keeping the page as is. W.marsh 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Public Security

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Security," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "security of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. The weblink (the only outside source) provided doesn't even use the term. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, over a billion ghits implies that this is a legitimate topic, just like public safety. Nen yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, vague topic. Squidfryerchef 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:SYNTH - Too vague a topic to cover all the items in the list Corpx 04:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment not NOR/SYNTH because no new facts were deduced, but it's not a good basis for an article because it's ( I think ) a relatively recent umbrella term for some very different agencies with their own long and distinguished histories, such as police and firefighting. I think it would make a fine category, i.e. "Public security agencies in Australia" but not an article. Squidfryerchef 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nenyedi. Notable, encyclopedic. See my comments at Public safety. Bearian 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Terrible, but notable. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - unlike public safety (above), I am far from convinced that this article has any significant content. Peterkingiron 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into National security and/or Homeland security, or perhaps even Civil defense?. Article is basically a list of governmental jurisdictions related to safety security, which is or should be covered adequately elsewhere.  As it stands, it is misleading, vague, and hopelessly uninformative.  Pure deletion is probably improper since one can imagine a person searching for information on public safety security, it is just that they need to be directed to a good article that is informative and useful.  This one is not adequate, other similar ones may be.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Public Safety. The two terms deal with the same concept. Once the text (a personal essay) and the lists (selective and not helpful) are removed we should be left with an empty page. If, at a future date, anyone can come up with a sourced distinction between Public Safety and Public Security then the redirect can be undone. TerriersFan 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've never heard the term "public security" before. Possibly that term is a synonym for "public safety" in countries other than my own. Squidfryerchef 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The security article tries to distinguish that term from safety; if this gets redirected that might be the way to go. It also seems to serve as a sort of dab page as well with its 'see also' list. Some countries do use "Public Security" instead of Public Safety (China, Poland, Berundi, Quebec, etc.) There might be ambiguity in translations in some cases. bobanny 03:20, 23 August 2007 (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.