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 redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haverhill Police Department (Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Non-notable police department in a small city. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Preposterous nomination. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin due to the very large number of detailed sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion: it is actually a large city with population 61,000+) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. No news stories and every other mention is trivial. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable in itself, probably good for about 2-3 lines in the Haverhill, Massachusetts article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fifty or so sources in GBooks alone are capable of supporting a lot more than two or three lines. I don't think that an encyclopedia should strive to be as simplistic and superficial as possible. It is simply not true that there are no news stories. There are five pages of listings of news stories in GNews, amounting to about fifty news articles. The sources are not all trivial mentions, which means something like an entry in a phonebook, not a large chunk of text in a history book or a law report (they seem to have been involved in a significant case concerning disclosure of information). The municipal ordinances alone will satisfy LGNC. James500 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts or delete.--Rpclod (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence subjects meets GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argument against redirection/merger. James500 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? The article one sentence. What is there to merge and why is it useful to redirect if the article will only have one sentence on it? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) One sentence is more enough to justify a redirect. Mere mention is sufficient justification. (2) We can write a lot more than one sentence, since the article is already more than one sentence (we cannot ignore the information in the infobox) and since there are other sources unused in the present article. (3) By the rubric of the guideline WP:R, we only delete plausible redirects if they are clearly positively harmful, and this meets non of the criteria for deletion of redirects. Deleting any plausible redirect is normally incredibly harmful for the reasons outlined at great length in that guideline (including aiding searches, facilitating accidental linking, avoiding redlinks, avoiding duplicate articles, preserving history). James500 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2015 (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.