Wikipedia talk:Notability (law enforcement agencies)

See also, for example

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement

Archives
1

To do list

 * Debate proposal
 * Proposal edits
 * Set and fix redirects, dabs, etc.
 * Set and fix short cuts, etc. (See Lede? . . . and LEA too for minor cross guideline impact.) Peet Ern (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Increase scope?
How about expanding this proposal to discuss which types of local government agencies offering services to the public are notable. Also including:
 * Fire departments (entire departments - all locations)
 * Schools (systems and individual schools)
 * Libraries (entire systems)
 * Public transportation (systems, lines, and stations)
 * Courts and courthouses
 * City and town halls

I have seen these brought up sometimes in AfDs. Can you think of any more to list? Sebwite (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be appropriate to include emergency services such as fire, ambulance, search and rescue, etc., but it would be too broad for the others to be included I think. They should have their own guidelines.  Note that there is already a Notability (schools), and a Notability (Places and transportation).  Peet Ern (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) *Oppose - It's a great idea, expanding the scope of a process like this to include most of not all of your suggestions Sebwite, and Pee Tern. However, I feel that we should see the community's breadth of opinion for this Law Enforcement discussion prior to achieving a consensus on more agencies. After this is successful there will be a Wikiacceptable guideline for the next policy discussion in which we can include a wider scope of agencies due to the community being comfortable with the previously defined guidelines for Law Enforcement. I will add more to the list though for, what I hope to be, a future, subsequent to the success of this one, process. Beam 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Defining the Scope
I think the overall scope needs better difinition. As it currently stands ("This guidance applies to articles about the law enforcement agency.") the broadness of the statement is going to cause repeditive problems at AFD's. Does this guideline actually apply to the CFIA because it is listed at List of law enforcement agencies? Also, this guideline should, specifically, address the problem of "is a Security Guard Agency a Law Enforcement Agency?" (I'm biased so not elegible to edit, but I dont want the same argument to repeat at AFD) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: From its own article the CFIA clearly is a regulatory authority rather than a law enforcement agency. It should not be listed at List of law enforcement agencies?


 * This then just leads to the question, Are regulatory authorities just a sub class of law enforcement agencies. Regulatory authorities tend to have a much lower key impact on society than law enforcement agencies.


 * One test might be Can the regulatory authority act on its own behalf for ALL matters within its jurisdiction, or for some or more serious matters does it need law enforcement agency support for appropriate powers. If the former, then it is possibly/probably a law enforcement agency, if the latter then it is NOT a law enforcement agency.


 * Similarly, for security guard agencies. If the security guard agency can act on all matters within its jurisdiction (related to the law) on its own behalf then it is a law enforcement agency, if not then it is not.


 * This will mean that many regulatory authorities are law enforcement agencies, but not all, and that most security guard agencies are not law enforcement agencies. This does not mean that they are not contributing to law enforcement.


 * The above does not have any real impact on notability. It is about how the agency is described and defined to be.


 * Peet Ern (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That sort of definition I would encourage to be used within the Scope, ("act on its own behalf for ALL matters") as it would be a absolute definition of the organization, rather than one more open to interpretation Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An afterthought arises; What about a situation of the reverse. Where a regulatory authority needs to be brought in to press a case of enforcement at the Police request. Eg. environmental spill/leak/hazard, Police do not have jurisdiction, and so technically fall outside of "ALL matters"...eek... was that a can of worms I just heard open :P. Wording could be tricky, but not impossible. Perhaps "ALL matters of the generally accepted codified law" or somesuch.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wriggle and squirm! You are right to raise the issue of the definitional boundary between LEAs and RAs.  However, I do not think it can be addressed here.  You might be better raising it a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement .  Cheers.  Peet Ern (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria counting
Question Are the criteria in the current draft and or or. In other words, to be notable, does an agency have to satisfy all the criteria, or any one of them? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In drafting the guideline my intention was for the weight of the overall criteria, that is if any one of the criteria are stong enough then it is notable, so they can be ored, if the there are marginal aspects under more than one criteria which when considered in combination make a strong case then it is notable, so they can be anded. Really, they are more arithmetically additative to get to a threshold rather than boolean. But in the end it is still subjective rather than objective.  We are just trying to reduce the amount of subjectivity to get some more consistency, and better quality articles. Peet Ern (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the Current Criteria...
Would the Tombstone Sherriff's office or whatever it may be be considered notable because Wyatt Earp was a Sherrif there? Is that enough to have an article about the Sherrif's office itself? It would have a history, sherrifs, signifigant events, decline, legacy breakdown to the article I would imagine. Well? Notable or not? Beam 01:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think yes, but NOT mainly because of Wyatt Earp's presence, more because it has been repeatedly fictionalised in popular media. My reading of Earp is that he was not actually the "legend" he now is?  Such an arcticle might actually commit significnant content removing the mystique? Peet Ern (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One more example: The Marshfield, MA Police Department? Beam 01:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What criteria or indicators are you relying on? Peet Ern (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply that it's a local police station in a town in Massachusetts. It, of course, has made many arrests (including notable ones). Is that enough for the Law Enforcement notability? Beam 11:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they have made a series of notable arrests over time, that is the arrests/case/incident warrant articles in their own right then I would say yes. If they have made only a handlful, possibly not, unless the arrest/s had national or international significance, and were very notable. Peet Ern (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Future Notibility Clause
Hi everyone, I have just added a clause to the guidline (Diff) about the possibility that an article that was judged to be non-notable gaining notability due to some event or the discovery or information that proves that Agency's notability.

This was the text that I added.

Also, if an article fails the criteria for notability at one time, that does NOT mean that it could never be notable and could never have its own article, if an editor is able to find sufficient evidence that an law enforcement agency that was judged to be non-notable in the past is now notable and passes both Notability and this guidline, than editors are encouraged to be Bold in writing an article for the Law Enforcement agency making sure to cite Reliable Sources in order to establish notability and that it passes Notability and this guidline.

Feel free to tweak it as you see fit, but I think that this is a necessary clause in the guidline because it allows for future notability to allow for a previous judgment of non-notability to be overturned due to new information or events. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
What is the value of a book about an agency if it's written by a member of that agency, but with an independent press? See the source I just added to Louisville Metro Police Department... it's written by a longtime officer but independently published. It gives a very favorable opinion of the department, from a skimming over of it I made, but nevertheless it's full-length book about the agency. Does it still establish notability? --Rividian (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This I think is more of a question for notability policy generally. The same could apply to any institution.
 * It might depend on how the book was edited, and reviewed, and the style of the publisher, for example, if the publisher was an academic press it might have more weight than if the publisher was an "airline lounge novel" publisher.
 * Or, possibly the book itself does not count to notabiltiy at all. Things described in the book might though.  The book could be used as a source of (caveated) references? Peet Ern (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)