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. The reason for the deletion nomination no longer exists, as the article is no longer blank. If the article is still deemed problematic, a new nomination would be needed to discuss any new problems it may have.  Sandstein  05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warwickshire Police Authority[edit]

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

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

Blank article, but contains tags, has previously been nominated for speedy deletion for copyright reasons on 6th May. I assume that deletion is contested as it has been recreated since deletion. Wintonian (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - A3, no content. --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the text out of the article as it seems that everytime I go to edit it it has changed from previous and therefore it would be easier to remain blank while you discuss the issue of the page. Warwickshire Police Authority is being referred to by another page (reason I chose to create it) which is therefore another concern for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashataylor (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3 no longer applies.; and the original copyright-based deletion was wrong as OTRS clearance exists. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content (before it was blanked) into Warwickshire or other suitable existing article. This organization isn't notable on its own. Peacock (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The correct parent article would be Police authority, if we were going to merge. But Police authorities are a significant part of the administration of justice, here in the UK, and personally I'm of the view that they're inherently notable, being a relatively powerful and well-funded arm of government. I'll go with do not delete. As an interim measure I would accept a redirect to police authority or a merge to that article, but in the fullness of time Wikipedia should have a proper article with this title.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Or we could redirect/ merge with Warwickshire Police --Wintonian (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the correct merge for a Wikipedia article on this topic would be with Warwickshire Police. The police authority is the statutory body responsible for policing, the police force the organisation discharging those duties. But clearly the information should not repeat general information applicable to all such bodies, and should be encyclopedic in form rather than merely duplicating information in another website. They are due to be replaced in 2012 under Government proposals. I agree with S Marshall that as statutory bodies with substantial powers GNG should not apply. In general I would prefer that information specific to each body be included under the matching police force if there is interesting to say about them, but if not they should qualify for an article in their own right. --AJHingston (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate either as a stub or a redirect to Warwickshire Police. Police authorities have a lot of power (as we know from the Ian Blair vs Boris Johnson war of 2005-2008), but the existing article (now blanked) looks like a reprint of a web page in a format unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. But there's no reason why someone shouldn't create a suitable article in its place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then recreate as a stub or redirect to Warwickshire Police per Chris Neville-Smith. The non-blanked version appears to be a copyright violation of the authority's website. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why the very first revision has "OTRS pending" on it, I should think, Thryduulf. It's clearly the police authority's intention to give Wikipedia permission to use their copyright; I think they just thought Wikipedia was a kind of free web host. Sashataylor's remark (above) implies that they think they ought to be able to control the content of "their" page, too. But it will be easy to educate them on these matters. Assuming there's OTRS permission I don't see why we'd want to hide the history by deleting it before we redirect.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't spotted the OTRS-pending tag. If acceptable OTRS permission is received then deletion before stubbification or redirect is indeed not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see the talk page. The OTRS permission has been confirmed/approved (and it's been confirmed since before this article went to AfD). Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. An inherently notable organisation and not the same thing as the Warwickshire Police Service. Separate organisations should have separate articles, for reasons outlined in my blog post about local government articles. And why do we treat new editors and their contributions - which we solicit - this way? How many of you have offered support? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the aritcle is no longer blank. I've added new content. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I propose keep and improve article and then consider merger when the government next restructures, so you have a joint historical article. User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 11:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok I admit that I didn't notice the WP:OTRS and I'm not sure I have come across it before, so obviously that’s not an issue, but I'm still not sure whether it warrants its own article? In that respect I would be happy to along with User:MikeBeckett or just merge anyway --Wintonian (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is now in a sufficiently rescued state. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2011 (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.