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 keep. There is a good case for merge here, but consensus for such a move should be sought through the usual discussions. Since there are reliable sources for the term (NSW Police and the Sydney Morning Herald), there really isn't any case for deletion at all. At least it should be a redirect. --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Registry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

unsourced article about a police squad. Each squad of police that focus on a particular set of crimes - or here - just a few statutes are not notable. Are we going to have New York Police Department's missing person task force, California Highway Patrol's seatbelt enforcement squad, Texas Rangers' homicide division and 10's of thousands of others getting articles? No. Put this info in the police force's article and redirect perhaps, otherwise delete. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bad faith Nom, It is not a police squad its a Corporate Service. AFD not even 24 hours after creation. Should be kept cause of nom not understanding articl. ExtraDry 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant information with New South Wales Police Force per nom. The creator of the article should be reminded that editors should assume good faith and remain civil. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hard to AGF when its AFD not even 24 hours after creation. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. A register of security personnel is neither uncommon nor controversial. An article on the NSW security industry might be interesting, and provide an opportunity to reference this Registry, but this as a standalone piece is just indiscriminate information. Euryalus 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could not add things to it to prove notablity cause i was blocked by the nom. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coment - You are clearly not blocked at the moment and no additional claim to notability has been added to the article. If you have additional material that would indicate notability, now would be a good time to make it clear. Euryalus 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge relevant information. Doesn't seem notable on its own. However, those redlinks violate WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI could not add things to it to prove notablity cause i was blocked by the nom. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing stopping you now. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some very few such squads might in fact be notable,but there is not the least evidence that this one is. DGG (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a squad the Nom is incorrect. I could not add things to it to prove notablity cause i was blocked by the nom. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to New South Wales Police Force. If it expands enough to warrant an article of its own at a later date, then recreate it.jonathon 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge per WP:N. User is not blocked now, and has still not added anything to indicate notability. It should be noted Australian police agencies have in some cases 30-60 of these subsidiaries, none of which receive any particular attention from anyone outside the agency itself. Orderinchaos 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Twenty Years 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It surpasses WP:N (and WP:ORG) and should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Auroranorth (sign) 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a bad faith nomination, just one that does not quote policy. This article is just not notable. There is only a single cite and an external link that could be turned into a cite, which fails the reliable sources rule. Underneath this box, it states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Otherwise is must be deleted. Possibly merge into New South Wales Police Force, if that is even relevant. Bearian 16:36, 3 November 2007 (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.