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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Police Department (Nebraska)

[edit]

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

Local Police department stubs, no indication of significance, let alone notability as per either WP:GNG, WP:ORG or WP:CLUB (I am assuming that you can call a Police department a Non-commercial organization), contested speedy and PROD (Prod without explanation). As per WP:CLUB : Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. as there already is List of law enforcement agencies in Nebraska in which these are listed and nothing other than contact details in an info box, there is nothing to merge and I don't see it as a likely search term they should be Deleted.

Also nominating :

Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (disclaimer: I've only checkef three of these stubs, no prejudice against expansion if indeed notable). Agree with the nominator, these stubs have no future. Who will track the changes in address, names of chief officers in infoboxen (BLP issue) etc. East of Borschov 10:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are all non-notable stubs that are part of a mass-creation by one editor [1]. This isn't the first example of kittens nor would it be the last, but we have editors who decide that it's a good idea to create lots and lots of pages at the same time, for whatever reason; in all the cases I've seen, the creator then moves on, never to visit the article again. Regardless of whether we feel that that type of practice is helpful, or disruptive, we have to go by policy. Stubs are only acceptable in the case of subjects that are, by policy, defined as inherently notable subjects; hence, it would be okay to make hundreds of stub articles about persons who have served in the Parliament of Bulgaria or who had played in a major professional sports league, because we have a policy that says that those subjects are inherently notable. There is no policy that I am aware of that says that a village, town, city, county, etc. police department is inherently notable. Hence, the creation of hundreds of articles about local law enforcement, without any showing of notability, is something that goes against established policy. Mandsford 21:49, 19 August 2010 (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.