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 any useful content to Oak Bay, British Columbia, but since I'm not certain what would be worth merging this is functionally a redirect closure - history is preserved so the information can easily be merged by more involved editors. There is clearly a consensus that this topic does not warrant a standalone article, but there is no solid consensus as to whether deleting it or merging it is preferable, thus my selected compromise is the redirect/merge. The arguments for keeping this seemed to hinge largely upon an argument that police departments should be considered inherently notable and thus above the need for reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. While that discussion may be an interesting one, it is not the sort of thing that can be covered in a single AfD. Shereth 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Police Department[edit]

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

Local police department with no evidence of notability and ghits that just confirm its existence. Prod/Prod2 removed on the grounds that, essentially, "other crap exists and more will exist soon." Still not a reason to keep this, no evidence it meets WP:ORG just like the other police/fire/ambulance companies. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Keep: Neither the existence nor the deletion of similar articles should govern this1. This municipal2 police force has existed more than 100 years,3 it is frequently referred to in local4 and sometimes in national news sources5, has had to deal with some serious crime6 in a usually low crime municipality recently7 and is central to the question in Vancouver Island politics about whether various municpalities, like it, surrounding the provincial capital of Victoria should be merged together8. It doesn't claim to be NYPD, but it does warrant a separate article. --KenWalker | Talk 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

  • Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
  • Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.
In this case, the city is the parent organization. Has this police department done something notable that is not common for other municipal departments in this city and not common to similar police forces in Canada? If so, then I may be persuaded to change my opinion from merge to keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, WP:ORG is a guideline, not a policy. This does not mean we throw it out the window whenever we want. It is a "generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tan | 39 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

An inspection report? Looks like the British Columbia police had an internal audit and this is the result. Am I missing something? Tan | 39 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Tan on this one, I can dig up inspection reports, audits, and the like on just about every government entity, non-profit organization, or business on the planet if I try hard enough. While it can be used as a source, it cannot be used to establish face="Papyrus">Tan]] | 39 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - refactored Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence presented that the audit and inspection service of British Columbia is not properly accurate and independent. By its nature, such a report is likely to be more thorough and neutral than a news report, say, since journalists tend to be sensationalist and have a vested interest in selling stories. Moreover, a report of sufficient weight to be a book is clearly a non-trivial source and indicates that the subject is worthy of notice. The idea that a complete police department for an area is insignificant seems utterly absurd. The comments above seem to confuse the idea of notability with the idea of importance. This PD is obviously not as important as Scotland Yard or the RCMP but it doesn't have to be to be worthy of notice. We have a fine little article here and I am not seeing the slightest reason for us to delete it as the facts it presents seem reasonably verifiable, neutral and unoriginal. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious, you just lost all credibility. If you aren't serious, you just lost all credibility. Take your pick. Tan | 39 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be one of those cases where the letter of the WP:V and WP:N policies would indicate it's an acceptable source, but the spirit does not. The spirit of the policies is that something is notable if it gets significant coverage from people who 1) don't have an agenda to push, i.e. 3rd-party, and 2) aren't covering in a trivial or pro-forma manner, i.e. significant coverage that is "optional" on the part of the entity covering it. While the audit in question is arguably independent, and definately non-trivial, it is very pro-forma - every police department is expected to have audits or similar documents created merely because the department exists. They are hardly optional. The same can be said for police-blotter sections in newspapers, a mention of the police department budget requests in newspaper articles that cover city council meetings, etc. Those don't carry much weight if you are arguing for notability.
Nope, even the letter of WP:N says that the source must have no affiliation to the subject to be considered an independent source. If there is an affiliation, as here, then the source shouldn't be used to assert notability Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of argument, I'll concede that point. But even if it had no affiliation, it would still fail WP:NOTPROFORMA. I wanted to make that point clear, so a mom-and-pop child-care business couldn't use government reports on it to say "look, we are notable, here are 3 different sources, one from the city, one from the province, and one from the national government, all with significant coverage" when it turns out that in that business's country, all similar businesses have similar government reports. NOTPROFORMA or some form of it needs to be explicitly added to WP:V. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I just didn't want someone arguing that it was ok, even within the letter of the guidelines!  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite ok by comparison with other types of sources. News reports tend to sensationalise their subject. Scholars have a vested interest in their topics, as do the authors of books. An inspection report is better for our purposes because the inspectors will have an explicit duty to be independent, just as the auditors of a company report have a similar legal duty. The source can therefore be expected to be reliable on matters of fact and adequately fair on matters of opinion. As for pro forma, this is only a substantial objection if you can show that it compromises the source in some way. A company's annual report is a reliable source since it is demanded by law precisely for this reason - so that investors and shareholders may have good information. Of course, company reports are not perfect but no source is perfect. And are you the same Fritzpoll who is going to create millions of pro forma article on every village in the world using census data? You do realise that a census is pro forma too? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm doing at all - I'm actually creating articles from a variety of sources, not just census data. You have failed to address the point in WP:N that sources used to assert notability should not be affiliated with the subject. My point was not that the data was pro-forma, but that it did not satisfy our independence criterion as stated in WP:N, whcih says, so that you don't have to click through and find it - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject... Fritzpoll (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed the point of affiliation so let me amplify this. WP:N states Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. The inspection staff of the British Columbia Police Services Division are clearly non-affiliated in this sense because they are (a) not part of the Oak Bay PD (b) not paid by the Oak Bay PD (c) not engaged to promote or otherwise make the Oak Bay PD look good. Government inspections are usually considered quite challenging since they will tend to be made in a somewhat critical manner, seeking to find fault by reference to government codes and regulations. On matters of fact, such as the number of staff, their data will be of the highest quality since government bureaucracies are notorious for their meticulous records. As for the pro forma point, we need to clarify whether the objection is to the standardised format of the document or its supposedly perfunctory nature. The latter objection seems inapplicable as a report of this size is obviously not perfunctory. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Colonel Warden apparently has no grasp on Wikipedia's notability policies, has no inclination to read the rebuttals here, and thinks this is "groundless disruption". I think we can all end arguing with him and safely presume that the closing admin will realize that his arguments have no weight whatsoever. Tan | 39 13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the hypocrisy? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to discuss the article's merits not our own. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (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.
More