Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Roads Policing Unit


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Western Roads Policing Unit

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Was prodded "Does not appear to exist except as several separate units of various different police forces.", but Googling for "Western Roads Policing Unit" got about 7,690 results, so enough people seem to believe that this police unit exists and may look in Wikipedia to find about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, and the results it produces suggest that there are at least three units with this name, none of which are remotely notable as they are each individual sub-units of separate police forces. ninety:one  02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, replace it by a disambig page? If it is deleted, then the links to it from pages Barker Crossing and Western Mobile Support Group need to be changed. Western Mobile Support Group redirects to Western Roads Policing Unit. Would someone who knows more than me about these British police units please comment? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Unit is a geographical division of a police force's Roads Policing Unit, which in turn is a section of the force's Operations department (or similar names). There appear to be at least three such separate units. The reference in the article Barker Crossing should become a link to Cumbria_Constabulary. Disambiguation would be logical but for the scale - there are likely to be a large number of police units with similar names across the UK and those names change with considerable regularity. A problem with creating disambigs on this scale is that it would imply the Units to which it linked existed, without any references. I think they might just get a little trivial, especially as they would only ever link to subsections of other pages. Not a bad idea though, what do others think? ninety:one  17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Replace with disambiguation page. As it stands, not enough context to understand what this is supposed to be referring to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation could be useful, as the name could refer to any of three or four units, but a redirect to Road Policing Unit would probably be better, particularly if the unit is not mentioned in the force's article. Where a unit is mentioned in another article (such as Barker Crossing), the name of the force would usually be mentioned and linked separately. Cumbria seems to be the only force that has had a Western Mobile Support Group, but again the choice of redirect target depends on whether the information is in the article. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete both this article and Western Mobile Support Group. The article says that it is is in Wales.  The references to Cumbria and to the Barker Crossing are thus irrelevant.  Whatever this article is about, it will be an operational subgroup of one of the Welsh police forces.  I would say "merge", but there is really too little to be worth merging, and until the force in question is identified, we would not know where to merge it.  Redirecting both to Road Policing Unit might be a viable option, but I still think it better to delete it and let some one start again when they can provide more than a stub on it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article passes neither V nor N.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:16, 28 January 2012 (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.