Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public safety


 * 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 &mdash; article may be confused about what the scope of this topic is, but that's an editorial question which can be solved through editing. --Haemo 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Public safety

 * – (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 Safety," 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 "safety of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. 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 Legitimate field. Contributors have ample opportunity to expand the current coverage ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Preposterous. There are entire schools devoted to the public safety field. Obviously we might call this a modern hybrid but there is much more to this than police and fire. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate field, and accurately describes my local police (Actually, public safety) department, the Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety.  Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Vague topic. Squidfryerchef 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * History is a pretty vague topic as well, should we delete that article also? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd change my position in a flash if someone produced a definition of public safety that is 1/2 as clearly delimited, precise, and attributable as the first sentence in the history article. bobanny 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look what we've got here. A dictionary definition, and a list.  And the list contains "Search and Rescue" and "Food Safety" but somehow left off "Police". Squidfryerchef 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs work, I agree, but seeing as we are talking about a wiki article, the main criterion for keeping anything is potential. Sorry for the snarky reply, "vague topic" was a little too concise to seem like a proper reason. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify, I'm not trying to deny that "public safety" exists, just that it's an umbrella term for anything relating to the safety of the public, such as Homeland security, intelligence, EMS, Disaster management, Emergency service, Police, Fire fighting, law enforcement, Food safety, etc., all of which have their own articles. Some combination of these things (but not all) is what's taught at public safety schools and are what state agencies named "public safety" are responsible for. Kalamazoo's Department of Public Safety is nothing more than police and fire services combined, according to their website. Unto itself, there's not much to say about it except that it's a grouping of some combination of these other things. bobanny 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep That list complained of shows in fact the notability of the subject and the wording--just ook at the titles of all the various organisations. One of the negative comments offers the criticism that the list is insufficiently comprehensive, a minor matter for editing. DGG (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the "complaint" is that the constituents of "public safety" do not clarify what public safety refers to. Is Kalamazoo's Dept of Public Safety misnamed because it only includes police and fire and not the others? On what basis is the C'tee of Public Safety of the French Revolution excluded from the scope of the article? Just because it's old? It's pretty arbitrary and attempts to define it in a "modern" sense contradicts Avoid neologisms. bobanny 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I looked at those titles and, being from the U.S., was wondering what the U.S. Department of Public Safety was. When I clicked on the article it just explained what a state or municipal public safety department meant.  I don't think this is a good basis for an article because it's ( I think ) a relatively recently defined umbrella term for different types of agencies with their own long and distinguished histories, such as police and firefighting.  Also very difficult to define what is a public safety agency.  Is it only first responders?  Do we include things like the department of public health?  What about security or private special police at railroads, hospitals, utilities?  I think "Public Safety" is just fine for naming categories.  i.e. "Public Safety Agencies in Virginia" but there's no basis for an article. Squidfryerchef 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG et al. Obviously notable and encycopledic.  Needing a fix is not a reason to delete. Bearian 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article may need to be improved, but the topic is legitimate and notable. --musicpvm 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the number of items listed under "see also" would mean that a disambiguation page would be needed if this one were removed. Certainly the French Committee for public safety is notable.  If the article includes NN junkm then delete that, not the article.  Peterkingiron 15:39, 19 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.