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. Whether or not it should be merged to Environmental law#Administration and enforcement is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

none of the article listed on this dab are plausible search targets for "green police" HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is correct in that the article does not work well as a dab page. All that is needed for that purpose are some hat notes. The substantive topic here is environmental law enforcement agencies and I have rewritten to show this way forward, adding a source which discusses this topic in a general way by this title. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This does seem to be a real thing. Don't have time to sort through the ample news results right now, [1], but "Green Police" and "Green Police" AND "Environment" together show a lot of results. Dream Focus 11:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only if the article is renamed to something like Environmental law enforcement. "Green Police" is an amateurish title, and is often used pejoratively to refer to people who are overly enthusiastic or militant about environmentalism. If there isn't consensus to rename the article, then my vote changes to Delete. SnottyWong ^babble 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Environmental law#Administration and enforcement (which could use the content) until such stage that there is enough content for Environmental law enforcement to exist on its own. I would suspect that the majority of the such enforcement would be by civil rather than criminal enforcement ('police') authorities, so that the current title is misleading (as well as informal). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you merge a disambiguation page? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not (currently) "a disambiguation page", but rather explicitly a stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my !vote to Merge per Hrafn. I searched around for a good merge target but couldn't find one. Environmental law#Administration and enforcement seems like a pretty good one. The section needs content, and the article has no length issues. SnottyWong ^spout 15:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.