Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dracut Police Department

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 Dracut, Massachusetts. There is a clear consensus here that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but no agreement on deletion or redirecting so am defaulting to redirect. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dracut Police Department

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

A police department in a small city is not something that is notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. No valid rationale for deletion. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion) 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) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. No references on the article at all and I couldn't find any either to support keeping it. Elgatodegato (talk) 19:06, 8 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) 17:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dracut, Massachusetts or delete.--Rpclod (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dracut, Massachusetts - CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence subjects meets GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argument against redirection/merger. James500 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? The article is an unreferenced stub. There is nothing worth merging. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content is required to be verifiable, not referenced. This article is too long to be a stub. Strictly speaking, it does have a reference, the department's website, which, IIRC, can be used as a source under ABOUTSELF. James500 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on department's website that verifies other than the most basic content (i.e. address), therefore the content is neither referenced or verifiable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I seriously doubt a redirect is even needed - people would type in the search for the town to find out info about its police department and I can't even think of any reason someone would go to Wikipedia for info on this department.... if they wanted their phone number or address, they would go directly to the website. Clearly fails WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reasons for redirects including facilitating accidental linking, avoiding redlinks, avoiding duplicate articles, preserving page history, avoiding violations of WP:CWW, and so on and so forth. 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. People who are interested in 'local history', or in how taxes are being spent, or in whether public services are being run in a satisfactory manner, all of which are matters of widespread interest, will expect to find information about the history etc of this department in Wikipedia and will come looking for it. Not everyone is the sort of anti-intellectual who would only be interested in contact details for reporting a crime. James500 (talk) 17:39, 21 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.