Wikipedia:Notability (law enforcement agency)/Archive 1


 * The following is an archived discussion concerning notability of law enforcement agencies. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in new sections on the discussion page, by clicking here.

In light of the above AfD, I think we need to decide on some criteria for notability, or if some already exist then find them, for police departments. Any ideas, do some exist already? SGGH speak! 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever criteria is used, it should include a very large percentage of departments of cities over a million people, a very small percentage of departments of small towns, and an in-between percentage of departments from medium-sized cities. In a nutshell, the criteria should be "Notable among police departments," i.e. either famous or infamous inside or outside of law enforcement.  For example, running a model crime lab that is copied by numerous other departments, or running a shoddy crime lab that sets the standard for what not to do.   Also, we are talking about departments that are connected to a town or other larger body, i.e. departments whose content can be part of a larger article.  Stand-alone entities, such as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, bounty hunters, private military organizations, etc., would have to qualify under general notability requirements. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed As a relatively new wikipedian I am rather confused where the line in the sand regarding notability is drawn. At the top end of the scale, there is no problem with notability, for an obviously notable item it is obvious. The problem is where notability trails off. I have seen a few debates about notability and it seems to me that it boils down more to the number of wikipedians with some interest in the topic rather than consistent intrinsic notability.


 * My view is that any entity or idea which has or has had a non trivial impact on the fabric, structure, or social norms of the society it is or was part of is inherently and intrinsicly notable. This could be a single major impact for a short time or many minor impacts over a long period of time.  This would include all settlements as it does now, and probably all fire/police/ambulance etc.  It would not include the local florist or hair dresser.  Note that this should also exclude many of the horse jockeys, never heard of by 99.9999999% of the population pop music groups and recordings, and many of the who on earth were they sports people, but would include all sports people representing their country no matter how briefly, and would include most politicians, so while my suggestion would include Oak Bay Police Department, it is still a higher bar than the current wiki standard.


 * While it is easy to do a google measure, this really only measures material with very recent electronic relevance.  We need to be careful of any measure we use to ensure that they are invertable, that is, a measure whose high values show notability, does a low value mean not notable ?  This is not the case with the google measure.  There is a massive amount of yet to be converted hard copy material in archives world wide.

I suspect there is somewhere like the village pump where a link to this discussion could be sent to encourage consensus building. I agree to rely only on the "google test" is somewhat ridiculous. SGGH speak! 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peet Ern (talk)
 * Exactly. A point I have made again and again. Too many editors seem to believe that if it's not featured highly on a Google search then it's not notable. That standard means that very minor modern "celebrities" are notable and many important figures from history who are not considered important in modern pop culture are not notable, which is clearly ridiculous. Print sources are every bit as relevant for notability as electronic sources (if not more so, since it takes time and effort to publish a print source against a few minutes to stick something on a website).


 * My instinct is to keep all articles on law enforcement agencies, however small, for the reasons given by Peet Ern. However, I can see the difficulties with the thousands of small American municipal police departments, most of which have little to distinguish one from the other. While I would not personally propose any article on an agency for deletion or support any attempt to delete such an article, I would say we should definitely keep the following and argue strenuously for their retention:
 * a) All national agencies, whatever the size.
 * b) All other territorial agencies with at least one hundred officers (which covers the police departments of pretty much all cities and counties of any size in the USA and Canada).
 * c) All specialist agencies (e.g. park, port, airport etc police), whatever the size (they tend to be much more interesting and varied than ordinary territorial agencies).
 * d) Any agency that has had extensive media coverage or a particular reason to be covered, as per usual notability guidelines.
 * -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 100 may be too low a bar, and there are way too many specialized agencies. First off, notability shouldn't be an automatic cutoff:  We should set our criteria so it is extremely likely police forces greater than some size would qualify and pretty unlikely that police forces smaller than some other size will not.  For example, if we think "100" is a good number, then if our policy excludes relatively few departments that have more than 100 officers and excludes most departments that have, say, fewer than 50, then we know we accomplished the goal.  I don't know if 100 is too low a bar - we need to get dept. sizes for cities of 100,000-1,000,000 people so we can see what we want to make sure we include.
 * Also, these days many schools, hospitals, and other government entities have their own police forces. Many of these police forces are small, consisting of only a handful of officers.  There's a big difference between the University Of Bigstate Campus Police Department with 50 officers and Small Regional College Campus Police Dept. with 5 officers or Local Community School District Police Department with 2 sworn officers.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * National agencies should only be covered if that country considers them of high importance. If it's a cabinet-level or immediate-sub-cabinet-level position, then sure.  If the national police function more like park police than the FBI, hardly ever get a mention in the media except when a crime occurs in a national park or when budget time comes around, and on paper they report to the head of the park service who reports to the assistant undersecretary of the interior, then I think we can exclude this one.  I'm not saying there are any such police departments, only that it shouldn't be automatic.  In any case we should defer to judgments of the locality wikiproject for national police forces.'''  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with this. The Kew Constabulary, for instance, is a very small force, but I think it still deserves an article. School and college forces may be an exception, since I agree that there are a large number of them in the USA and most of them are much the same as each other. Your national criteria would exclude the United States Park Police (who are pretty much exactly what you describe), which I think is a little extreme! In the US, incidentally, departments with about 100 officers usually police cities of about 40,000 population (so one can probably assume that cities of 100,000 probably average about 200-250 officers). You may want to look at a draft list which I compiled some time ago to get some idea of department sizes in the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the US Park Police and the Kew Constabulary should only be included if they have "extensive media coverage or a particular reason to be covered, as per usual notability guidelines." I know the Park Police has, if it is notable, then the Kew Constabulary has also.  Those who don't qualify can be in a larger list.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should draw up a debate over at WP:N? SGGH speak! 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Idea

 * Perhaps we should create a guideline Page such as WP:SCHOOL and name it something like WP:POLICE (with the full name of Notability (police)) and then move this discussion to the talk page of WP:POLICE because if you look at WP:SCHOOL the guideline is still being worked on/tweaked even though the page has already been created and it eliminates the need to hop back here to see the discussion because all the discussion can be kept on the same page as the guideline will be once we can all agree on something and achieve consensus and make it an official policy. Also, when we finalize the guideline it will be easier for people to find the discussion from which the guideline came out of thus improving transparency making it easier for future editors to find the original discussion and change the guideline as necessary in the future.  All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support this idea. SGGH speak! 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support it too. I also think there needs to be more intrinsic definitive material in WP:N.  WP:N really reads as notable elsewhere so it can be notable in Wikipedia, rather than it is notable because of the nature of the thing the article is about so it can be notable in Wikipedia. Peet Ern (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First cut - Notability (law enforcement agency)
I have drafted a first cut at User:Pee Tern/Notability (law enforcement agency).

If it has merit, please let me know so that I can move it into WP space.

Comments here please if any before it gets moved for the full discussion.

Peet Ern (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If I see nothing contrary on this in the next 18 hours or so, I will move it into WP space and set up the talk page for the debate, including "archiving" this section, and referencing the other related current discussions.


 * Note that based on the first cut above of the notability guide Oak Bay Police Department would probably NOT be deemed notable, BUT Larne Harbour Police probably WOULD BE deemed notable. There would probably be a very close match to the classification in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement.


 * Only comment here on the proposal if you feel the first cut above should not be initiated as a proposal. Discussing its content will be part of the proposal.


 * My main concern with what I have drafted is that if we take a line like it, it is so much higher than vast numbers of other crap articles / micro stubs, etc. in other subject areas.


 * Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in new sections on the discussion page, by clicking here. No further edits should be made to this section.