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 and redirect to Larne. Please note, I'm not performing the merge, but I will tag it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larne Harbour Police[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of police services, especially ones that do not assert any notability. This is a small group with very limited coverage in one small area with no citations or assertion of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a specialist police force, not a territorial police force, and specialist police forces are notable for their novelty value. This is particularly true in the British Isles, which have very few of them since most policing is carried out by large territorial forces. The phrase "assertion of notability" is an overused one - how is an article supposed to assert notability? In my 4+ years on Wikipedia I have continued to be puzzled by this phrase which many editors (especially the growing army of deletionists) seem to take for granted. Many organisations are notable simply by existing, and this is one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assert notability by telling the reader why it is important, why it is not just another group of people with uniforms? Are there any reliable references to backup what you say above? Nothing is notable for the fact that it exists, it becomes notable when there is a citation stating it is notable, or receiving 3rd party coverage. It is not what we think is notable but what we can prove is notable per wikipedias policies. Wikipedia is not about what is true, it is about what is verifiable. If you can cite anything to the affect above, I am sure there would be no problem at all.Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • a google search - the fluff only comes up with 4 pages with nothing I can see that shows they are notable? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh good grief, someone else who thinks that Google searches are the be all and end all of notability. Why do you think we bother writing articles at all if it's all on the internet already? I give up! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no doubt they are not the end all be/all of notability and have writtein articles myself based on book sources that little information can be found on google. However, NOBODY has provided a source for this? If you have one, please bring it forward? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Larne. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Larne as well. After reviewing this, I like the merge redirect option. It can get coverage as part of the larger topic of Larne. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge/Redirect to Larne, a future article about Larne Harbour, or to a list of such specialty police forces. If the only thing notable about them is their jurisdiction, and they are not the only example of such a police force, then they are no more "notable" than a similar-sized force whose jurisdiction is something more common, such as a city. The only reason not to merge/redirect is if there is no target to merge with or redirect to. If they are the only existing police force authorized under the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, then either Keep the article or write Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847 and merge this with the new article. Likewise, if they are the best example of a police force under that act, then leave them up as an exemplar and merge articles about other, similar forces into Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. As a point of comparison, in the United States there are a myriad of specialty police forces, including police forces for universities, K-12 school districts, public hospitals, parks, and other minor government entities. Except for very large ones like the national parks service police, or those that face special issues or have a special history like the Port Authority police involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, most have no more notability than your average small-town police department. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) see below[reply]

• Merge to Larne, where it can be discussed in context and expanded with reliable sources until a separate article is justified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above. The article as it stands now has just enough context to escape a ((db-a1)), and adequate context would be provided by the Larne article. I think such a merger would benefit both articles. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. SGGH ^speak! 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replacing merge suggestion above: Merge all mainspace stubby articles listed here (Special:WhatLinksHere/Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847) into the existing redlink Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I checked and of the 6 articles listed, only Port of Dover Police has any real content, and even it doesn't make a specific claim of notability that stands out from the stubs. Other articles include: Belfast Harbour Police · Falmouth Docks Police · Port of Felixstowe Police · Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Harbour Police and of course Larne Harbour Police which is this AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Ports police along with several other stubs. See discussion at Talk:List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Ports police. I have expanded that section enough to cover almost all information in this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it doesn't matter what the organization is; government/private, specialized/generalist police/civilian, etc, there are only 64 Google hits, no Google newshits, and one Google book hit (trivial). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ah well, that proves it then. As we all know, the internet is the only source of information! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but non-internet sources have been not been provided. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but that's no reason to base notability entirely on Google. It's a very poor way of establishing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, so we should take your word that they are notable? Lets change the WP:V and/or WP:NOTE policy to add that , in the lack of book sources and Ghits, it is verifiable/notable if User:Necrothesp says so? Nobody is arguing that google is the end all be all for notablility, but in the lack of any other sources it is what we have to take. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't be ridiculous. My point is merely that doing a Google search and then saying "oh look, there aren't many hits so it obviously isn't notable" is simplistic to the point of ludicrousness, implies that the internet is the only source of knowledge, and is a technique frequently used by deletionists to "prove" their point when they really don't have one. I've seen it far too often. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You disagreement here is clearly not with the article, but with a set of beliefs (deletionsim). You can complain all day about people using the google test, but most cases that is all we have. It is not the responsibility of the people at AFD to go search every book source in existence to find a verifiable source. Again, nobody is going to complain if YOU provide a source. Actually, I would commend you for going to the effort to find one, if it exists. Instead of complaining about people using the google test, do some research yourself and show us it is notable and why the google test is wrong? This AFD has nothing to do with a broad set of beliefs (inclusionists Vs. deletionsists) but with the merits of this article within the scope of wikipedias policies of verigfiability and notability. You have YET to address these concerns in relation to policy. One group has shown why they believe it to be unnotable, and the best you have done so far is complain about it, but actualyl do nothing to fix it? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You misunderstand my reasoning and my beliefs. I am not an inclusionist (although I am certainly not a deletionist either). I have opined many times on AfDs that articles should be deleted for reasons of non-notability and prodded and proposed for deletion quite a number myself. However, I do not believe that any police force is non-notable. That is my opinion. It is, like all opinions, subjective. But your opinion is no less subjective. Notability is a policy, but what is and is not notable remains highly subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment:WP:N is a guideline to interpret the content policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You probably know that already but I want to ensure others don't misinterpret what you said. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sure, it looks like it needs some work and some expansion, but what will it hurt to keep it around a little bit to allow that to happen? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to expand and nobody offering to do it. Are you offering to do it? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 02:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize that you want this article deleted. You've made it very clear. I'm not opposed to the merge idea. Hell, I'd never even heard of this force until this article, so it has clearly educated at least one person. Your original reasoning included the lack of citations, which I see someone went to the page and took care of, so it no longer applies, I gave my opinion; cast my vote if you will. I have no intention of getting into some long winded debate over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources provided are not independent of the force, and are trivial too. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is independent a requirement? Would we dismiss the LAPD website on an article about the LAPD? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismiss? No. Use it as a reliable source. No. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • When did govt. websites become considered unreliable sources? Is the US Census Bureau or FBI website "unrelaible"? Would you really try to convince us that the Senate website isn't a reliable source for Senate information? Why the sliding scale? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not about trustworthiness, it's about notability. Should we have an article on the Flagstaff Arizona Fleet Services Division? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You just commented on how you can use it as a reliable source. When I address that, you change to the notability requirement and claim you didn't make an issue of trustworthiness. Is the Flagstaff Fleet services division a rare, specialized fleet services division? Are they unusual compared to other fleet services divisions? Look, I understand that the existence of this article offends some sort of imagined order you have. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you because it's clear that the deletionist have this sewn up. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imagined order? I'm sticking to policy and guideline. This entity has no sources saying anything besides "they exist". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see. You are one of those guys who thinks YOUR interpretation of "policy and guideline" is the only one. That explains a lot. So does your user page where you brag about how many articles you've "managed" to get deleted. I guess if that qualifies as an accomplishment to you, then you should be proud. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, according to the article, they have 7 officers. The article makes no claim of notability. There are no reliable sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT and question for those proposing delete Do you have any objections to redirecting the article to one of the suggested redirect targets? Do you have a preferred redirect target? I ask, because if this article is deleted, it will likely be recreated as a redirect, and a consensus of where to redirect is preferred to someone being BOLD and seeing if someone else changes it. Edit wars are no fun. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too thrilled about the idea of a redirect for every adminstrative division of every local government. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason? Redirects cost nothing. And it is not an "adminstrative division of every local government". It's a body with a distinct identity (not just the xyz department) and therefore something people might actually search for! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Larne. There's no good reason this article can't be recreated if it ever gets too big, bad and notable to be contained within Larne. As it is, if only for purely organizational purposes, the subject isn't helped by keeping this a distinct entity. Ford MF (talk) 02:31, 30 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.