701:
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?
168:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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. --
343:
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.
685:
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
342:
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
182:
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,
1021:
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
986:
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
951:
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
839:
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
700:
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
721:
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
333:
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
587:
183:
or receiving 3rd party coverage. It is not what we think is notable but what we can prove is notable per wikipedias policies. Knowledge (XXG) 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.
241:
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?
334:
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
908:
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?
1063:
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! --
952:
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.
722:
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. --
143:
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
451:
226:
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! --
524:
559:
520:
136:
481:
840:
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.
455:
339:
203:
103:
98:
107:
665:
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.
90:
801:: 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?
462:
has any real content, and even it doesn't make a specific claim of notability that stands out from the stubs. Other articles include:
17:
284:
823:
709:
673:
313:
250:
214:
191:
152:
586:, it doesn't matter what the organization is; government/private, specialized/generalist police/civilian, etc, there are only
305:
as well. After reviewing this, I like the merge redirect option. It can get coverage as part of the larger topic of Larne.
591:
1004:, according to the article, they have 7 officers. The article makes no claim of notability. There are no reliable sources.
1089:. There's no good reason this article can't be recreated if it ever gets too big, bad and notable to be contained within
1034:
539:
500:
355:
1120:
966:
Imagined order? I'm sticking to policy and guideline. This entity has no sources saying anything besides "they exist".
36:
1093:. As it is, if only for purely organizational purposes, the subject isn't helped by keeping this a distinct entity.
1102:
1073:
1058:
1044:
1013:
996:
975:
961:
936:
918:
895:
881:
863:
849:
830:
810:
777:
731:
716:
695:
680:
648:
634:
620:
603:
577:
549:
510:
440:
428:
398:
365:
320:
293:
257:
236:
221:
198:
177:
159:
72:
1038:
543:
504:
475:
383:, where it can be discussed in context and expanded with reliable sources until a separate article is justified.
359:
94:
1119:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1098:
1054:
1009:
971:
932:
891:
859:
630:
599:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1049:
I'm not too thrilled about the idea of a redirect for every adminstrative division of every local government.
639:
No, but that's no reason to base notability entirely on Google. It's a very poor way of establishing it. --
923:
It is not about trustworthiness, it's about notability. Should we have an article on the
Flagstaff Arizona
463:
992:
957:
914:
877:
845:
806:
572:
469:
1069:
774:
727:
691:
644:
616:
485:
459:
395:
289:
232:
173:
86:
78:
1094:
1050:
1005:
967:
928:
887:
855:
626:
611:. Ah well, that proves it then. As we all know, the internet is the only source of information! --
595:
59:
762:. You probably know that already but I want to ensure others don't misinterpret what you said.
1030:
872:
Is independent a requirement? Would we dismiss the LAPD website on an article about the LAPD?
535:
496:
351:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
755:
658:
988:
953:
910:
873:
841:
802:
566:
759:
206:- the fluff only comes up with 4 pages with nothing I can see that shows they are notable?
1065:
763:
723:
687:
662:
640:
612:
384:
279:
228:
169:
527:. I have expanded that section enough to cover almost all information in this article.
661:
policy to add that , in the lack of book sources and Ghits, it is verifiable/notable if
816:
702:
686:
to "prove" their point when they really don't have one. I've seen it far too often. --
666:
410:
306:
243:
207:
184:
145:
751:
740:
654:
815:
There is nothing to expand and nobody offering to do it. Are you offering to do it?
406:
as suggested above. The article as it stands now has just enough context to escape a
65:
53:
1023:
528:
489:
344:
124:
924:
854:
The sources provided are not independent of the force, and are trivial too.
437:
653:
Oh, so we should take your word that they are notable? Lets change the
525:
Talk:List of law enforcement agencies in the United
Kingdom#Ports police
521:
List of law enforcement agencies in the United
Kingdom#Ports police
1090:
1086:
417:
380:
302:
274:
49:
452:
Special:WhatLinksHere/Harbours, Docks, and Piers
Clauses Act 1847
1113:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
52:. Please note, I'm not performing the merge, but I will tag it.
1022:
seeing if someone else changes it. Edit wars are no fun.
625:
No, but non-internet sources have been not been provided.
131:
120:
116:
112:
560:
list of
Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions
523:along with several other stubs. See discussion at
482:Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Harbour Police
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1123:). No further edits should be made to this page.
458:. I checked and of the 6 articles listed, only
416:, and adequate context would be provided by the
1019:COMMENT and question for those proposing delete
886:Dismiss? No. Use it as a reliable source. No.
420:article. I think such a merger would benefit
8:
456:Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847
450:all mainspace stubby articles listed here (
340:Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847
558:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
446:Replacing merge suggestion above:
24:
1:
592:one Google book hit (trivial)
454:) into the existing redlink
1140:
590:, no Google newshits, and
1103:02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1074:13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1059:19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
1045:13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
1014:10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
997:22:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
976:20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
962:19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
937:19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
919:18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
896:05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
882:04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
864:23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
850:17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
831:02:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
811:22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
778:19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
747:to interpret the content
732:09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
717:17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
696:16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
681:16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
649:15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
635:12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
621:09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
604:01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
578:23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
550:22:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
511:19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
476:Port of Felixstowe Police
441:19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
429:19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
399:18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
366:17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
321:16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
294:16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
258:19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
237:18:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
222:16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
199:16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
178:16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
160:15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1116:Please do not modify it.
73:19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
925:Fleet Services Division
424:articles. --Blanchardb-
464:Belfast Harbour Police
470:Falmouth Docks Police
338:the article or write
486:Larne Harbour Police
460:Port of Dover Police
87:Larne Harbour Police
79:Larne Harbour Police
488:which is this AfD.
1083:Merge and redirect
517:Merge and redirect
513:
368:
46:merge and redirect
44:The result was
1043:
1042:
580:
563:
548:
547:
509:
508:
445:
426:
364:
363:
325:
69:
1131:
1118:
1028:
1027:
828:
821:
771:
768:
714:
707:
678:
671:
575:
569:
564:
554:
533:
532:
494:
493:
425:
415:
409:
392:
389:
349:
348:
318:
311:
287:
282:
255:
248:
219:
212:
196:
189:
157:
150:
134:
128:
110:
70:
67:
62:
56:
34:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1121:deletion review
1114:
824:
817:
769:
764:
710:
703:
674:
667:
663:User:Necrothesp
573:
567:
413:
407:
390:
385:
314:
307:
285:
280:
251:
244:
215:
208:
204:a google search
192:
185:
153:
146:
130:
101:
85:
82:
66:
60:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1137:
1135:
1126:
1125:
1108:
1106:
1105:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1051:Phlegm Rooster
1016:
1006:Fee Fi Foe Fum
999:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
968:Phlegm Rooster
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
929:Phlegm Rooster
901:
900:
899:
898:
888:Phlegm Rooster
869:
868:
867:
866:
856:Phlegm Rooster
836:
835:
834:
833:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
627:Phlegm Rooster
596:Phlegm Rooster
588:64 Google hits
581:
552:
514:
484:and of course
443:
436:as per above.
431:
401:
373:
372:
331:Merge/Redirect
323:
299:Merge/Redirect
296:
271:Merge/Redirect
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
141:
140:
81:
76:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1136:
1124:
1122:
1117:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1025:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
950:
949:
948:
947:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
865:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
838:
837:
832:
829:
827:
822:
820:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
779:
776:
772:
767:
761:
757:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
720:
719:
718:
715:
713:
708:
706:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
684:
683:
682:
679:
677:
672:
670:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
579:
576:
570:
561:
557:
553:
551:
545:
541:
537:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
512:
506:
502:
498:
491:
487:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
442:
439:
435:
432:
430:
423:
419:
412:
405:
402:
400:
397:
393:
388:
382:
378:
375:
374:
371:
367:
361:
357:
353:
346:
341:
337:
332:
328:
324:
322:
319:
317:
312:
310:
304:
300:
297:
295:
292:
291:
288:
283:
276:
272:
269:
259:
256:
254:
249:
247:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
225:
224:
223:
220:
218:
213:
211:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
195:
190:
188:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
156:
151:
149:
138:
133:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
63:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1115:
1112:
1107:
1082:
1018:
1001:
825:
818:
798:
765:
748:
744:
736:
711:
704:
675:
668:
608:
583:
555:
516:
478:
472:
466:
447:
433:
421:
403:
386:
376:
369:
335:
330:
326:
315:
308:
298:
290:(yada, yada)
278:
270:
252:
245:
216:
209:
193:
186:
165:
154:
147:
142:
45:
43:
31:
28:
989:Niteshift36
954:Niteshift36
911:Niteshift36
874:Niteshift36
842:Niteshift36
803:Niteshift36
568:Fabrictramp
1066:Necrothesp
724:Necrothesp
688:Necrothesp
641:Necrothesp
613:Necrothesp
574:talk to me
229:Necrothesp
170:Necrothesp
68:Disclaimer
745:guideline
370:see below
1035:contribs
749:policies
540:contribs
501:contribs
356:contribs
137:View log
1095:Ford MF
1024:davidwr
987:proud.
756:WP:NPOV
737:Comment
659:WP:NOTE
657:and/or
609:Comment
529:davidwr
490:davidwr
427:-timed
345:davidwr
104:protect
99:history
1039:e-mail
1002:Delete
766:Double
760:WP:NOR
758:, and
584:Delete
544:e-mail
505:e-mail
387:Double
360:e-mail
327:Delete
286:crewer
132:delete
108:delete
55:Keeper
1091:Larne
1087:Larne
819:Chris
775:Talk)
743:is a
705:Chris
669:Chris
519:into
448:Merge
434:Merge
418:Larne
411:db-a1
404:Merge
396:Talk)
381:Larne
377:Merge
309:Chris
303:Larne
275:Larne
246:Chris
210:Chris
187:Chris
148:Chris
135:) – (
125:views
117:watch
113:links
50:Larne
16:<
1099:talk
1070:talk
1055:talk
1031:talk
1010:talk
993:talk
972:talk
958:talk
933:talk
915:talk
892:talk
878:talk
860:talk
846:talk
826:lk02
807:talk
799:Keep
770:Blue
752:WP:V
741:WP:N
728:talk
712:lk02
692:talk
676:lk02
655:WP:V
645:talk
631:talk
617:talk
600:talk
556:Note
536:talk
497:talk
438:SGGH
422:both
391:Blue
352:talk
336:Keep
316:lk02
281:brew
277:. --
253:lk02
233:talk
217:lk02
194:lk02
174:talk
166:Keep
155:lk02
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
1085:to
1037:)/(
1033:)/(
565:--
562:.
542:)/(
538:)/(
503:)/(
499:)/(
379:to
358:)/(
354:)/(
329:or
301:to
273:to
64:|
58:|
48:to
1101:)
1072:)
1057:)
1012:)
995:)
974:)
960:)
935:)
927:?
917:)
894:)
880:)
862:)
848:)
809:)
754:,
730:)
694:)
647:)
633:)
619:)
602:)
594:.
571:|
414:}}
408:{{
235:)
176:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
61:76
1097:(
1068:(
1053:(
1041:)
1029:(
1026:/
1008:(
991:(
970:(
956:(
931:(
913:(
890:(
876:(
858:(
844:(
805:(
773:(
739::
726:(
690:(
643:(
629:(
615:(
598:(
546:)
534:(
531:/
507:)
495:(
492:/
479:·
473:·
467:·
394:(
362:)
350:(
347:/
231:(
172:(
139:)
129:(
127:)
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.