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 merge to Cumberland, Maryland. Many of the sources are primary or local. Those that are not are about specific news incidents, rather than about the department itself. However, consensus seems to lean toward merge rather than deletion. Shimeru (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Police Department (Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Nom - no indication of notability, no significant national coverage, local interest only. Rklawton (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly worth a mention (including the link) in the article about Cumberland, Maryland, but not independently notable enough for its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Cumberland, Maryland article. Warrah (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have updated the article with independent, verifiable, third-party information that specifically identifies the subject in detail. The article falls within the guidelines for WP:N, specifically WP:GNG. Also, a google search shows the WP article is researched by the general public enough that it shows up as the second-most accessed link (after the subject's own website). --It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are a local. That's certainly not significant. Rklawton (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Pursuant WP:GNG, significant sources are, "...sources [that] address the subject directly in detail." Although, it is not as strong as one may like; that, coupled with the hits that it receives in google should be enough to keep the article. Cheers!--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local-only sources point directly to lack of notability. Just about anything could have local coverage, yet not everything is notable for our purposes. There's a long list of police department articles from cities larger than this one that have been deleted for exactly the same reason. Rklawton (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Rklawton on this one. It's to be expected that the Cumberland Times-News and the city's websites would have coverage of the city police department, but most police departments don't achieve widespread notability. All police departments, like all fire departments, are important, and society can't function without them; there is no indication, however, that the CPD is more notable than any other police department. Perhaps we should have a policy of automatic notability for police departments, as we do for high schools, but at the moment, we do not. The link to the department should be placed within the article about the city itself. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand both of your arguments. However, whether we want them to be notable or not is irrelevant. There is certain criteria for a subject to be notable enough for inclusion:

1. A source. Information from some place other than the author WP:NOR. It has that.
2. Significant coverage. This does not mean "a lot" of coverage, it means a source addresses the subject directly. It has that, as well.
3. Reliability of source. The Cumberland Times-News, although small, is reliable. A subject need not be the headline of CNN to rate inclusion. It has that.
4. Independent source. The source should be independant of the subject. The Cumberland Times is such. Check.
5. Presumption for inclusion. This is what we are debating. Since this article does not conform to WP:NOT. It has that presumption.

I think we are spending way too much time debating on trivial things when there is alot more work to be done on this project than trying to delete an article just for the sake of deleting it. This article, although small, fits the criteria (and is accessed by the general public alot). Cheers (and happy Easter)!--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of coverage is not significant so the coverage is not significant. You can use lots of words - or you can learn from this. Your choice. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there's no need to be snippy. Secondly, how else should I explain myself other than using words? I simply disagree with your rationale and am citing WP policy to back up my position. Perhaps, you should take a step back. It seems you might be taking it personally that I am opposing the deletion. Sometimes people nominate articles for deletion in haste. I would be happy to continue debating; however, I am disinclined to continue to respond if you are unable to maintain objectivity. Just a suggestion, but, in a forum such as Wikipedia, people generally do not respond well to condescending rhetoric. And just a side note, the fact that other police articles have been deleted is not germane to this AfD (WP:WAX). Cheers!--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 21:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While other AfDs don't affect this AfD, they do point in the general direction this AfD is likely to head. Ignoring this fact is like putting your head in the sand and singing "lalalalala." It won't work here, either. What do you propose using for sources next, high school news papers, a flier some kid prints off his computer and distributes? This article has exactly two sources that aren't pulled from a database or the city's website, and those two sources are from one local newspaper. And no, that is NOT significant. Without national coverage, this article doesn't stand a snowball's chance. Rklawton (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You win. I see you cannot speak without condescension dripping from the sentences. You appear to be an adminstrator, too. Not very becoming behavior... disappointing. --It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 21:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I win if you learn. Here's how it works for organizations per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

1. attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability
2. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

Please note that I've already covered this ground above but you wouldn't believe me. Rklawton (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps next time you can forgo all of the condescending rhetoric and just stick to the facts to begin with. It may help if you took the approach of "let me help you understand," instead of "you're too stupid to understand so I will just talk down to you until you do". Notwithstanding if you are right or wrong, you may want to take a leave of absence from doing adminy things until you have mastered some social graces. Don't forget how civilly you spoke with people here while they were throwing stones at you. It was apparent you had some social challenges to overcome there, as well. --It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote most civilly in the nomination above: "no significant national coverage, local interest only." The nomination also contained a link to our notability guidelines for organizations which I again cited above. For some reason known only to you, you utterly ignored this accurate, sourced, and to the point information and proceeded to argue without merit. We call this contentious editing. So perhaps you should take a break from editing and reexamine your approach here - as it was entirely uncalled for, unnecessary, unhelpful, and not welcome. Learn! Rklawton (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably a good time for both of you to call a cease-fire, before this escalates any further. WP:CIVIL includes an admonition against "aggressive behavior", and neither of you is entirely innocent in that regard. By the same token, neither of you has been bested by the other. It doesn't matter who started it, and it doesn't matter which person gets the last word. I've been blocked before, and trust me, it's no fun... and it's not worth it either. Mandsford (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent idea!--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing wrong with the article. The PD for a city of 20,000 is notable enough and this article gives the info interested people will be looking for as well as a couple of historical highlights. The Cumberland PD is certainly more worthy of a WP article than lots of other topics, of which I will not give examples. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Cumberland, Maryland article, per Warrah. Other stuff exists. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate some of the other stuff and you will have my support. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I could add that any and all police departments are considered notable in and of themselves. Any organization that has the power to restrict any individuals’ basic freedoms, as a police department does, is a notable organization. However, !--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} expressed my views more eloquently they I ever could do. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would say that such an article could be kept, see, e.g., Genesee County Sheriff. However, I'd also like to see better sourcing and facts or statistics about crimes reported to and solved by the department. Discuss, please. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local police department in a very small city, with nothing distinctive. that a town had a lnyching 100 years ago is worth adding to the city's article, but doe not make their police department notable. Nor does the fact that as the high point of their history , they once actually arrested a murderer. I'm for expanding our coverage to a reasonable extent, , but this would be a rare exception below our customary standard. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Our editing policy mandates that we should keep respectable, sourced content of this kind. Consideration of merger into other articles about the municipality is a matter of ordinary content editing, not requiring deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our mandate requires notability, too, and this article fails these two critical points Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability
2. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

true, it is possible that we might expand our mandate to become or include a directory or supplement that would require WP:V and WP:NPOV, but not notability. They would be a purpose for one, and a wiki might be the best way to compile it . I'd strongly support this as a separate project. But not Wikipedia (and not Wikia, because a reliable directory must still be free from advertising). Under any other concept of inclusion than being a pure directory, this article does no belong here at Wikipedia

The point of WP:PRESERVE which, being policy, carries more weight than WP:N, is that we look to constructive solutions in such cases. Deletion would be entirely negative and unhelpful. Merger into an appropriate section of an article about the municipality is clearly a more appropriate course of action per this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added a secondary source for the murdered officer, and an out-of-state media reference for the recent murder investigation.--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep per WP:HEY and WP:BARE. It is getting to the threshold of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that WP:BARE is an essay not accepted by most Wikipedians, so I could understand if the article in question were deleted. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if barely notable, it still is notable, and can only become more notable from this point on. It already has enough sources to meet GNG. Once these sources have been published, they do not disappear. Dew Kane (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Oh, please. There are 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States. Do we have to have an article about every single one of their police departments? There is nothing remotely notable about this small police department serving a population of 23,000. Look at the "news reports" for heavens sake! One of them is about an incident that happened there more than 100 years ago; the other reports breathlessly that the police department actually got to investigate a homicide in 2009! There is absolutely no media coverage that isn't minor and local. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Redirect or Merge to Cumberland, Maryland. Article makes no claim of notability for this organization. "Sources" are the epitome of "trivial" and "local". Topic is unencyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added information of a double-homicide that caught the attention of the Baltimore Sun. And just curious, how is the topic (a law enforcement agency) unencyclopedic?--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia (and all other encyclopedias) have standards for inclusion. The topic of this article does not meet those standards, since it relies on making connections to other things that themselves are not WP:Notable. Put simply, there are no secondary sources on the topic of the Cumberland Police Department the way there are on, for example, the Los Angeles Police Department. Abductive (reasoning) 04:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the subject is not encycopedic. There are secondary sources: The Baltimore Sun and The Cumberland Times.--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:07, 16 April 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.