Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Monica 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Police Department

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

Non-notable police department, created by a PR sock. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Police department with about 450 employees. Large enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

number of employees is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ fails WP:GNG. Gnews shows almost all coverage is routine and from local press. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per discussion below, results from highbeam, gnews are all routine and run of the mill of what any city police department does. James500 was even not able to specify 3 sources that would establish notability instead arguing the totality of highbeam sources makes it notable . In fact highbeam is full of police department press releases which would not satisfy WP:ORGIND as a reliable third party source. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd nomination. Satisfies GNG easily due to significant coverage etc etc etc in sources in GBooks (of which there are more than one hundred for "Santa Monica Police Department" alone), GNews (of which there are more than 420 for the same expression) and elsewhere. The coverage is not almost all routine and local, even in GNews. Indeed, coverage in books is never local or routine because they aren't published locally or periodically. And you can't demonstrate that coverage is routine by cherry picking. The content of GNews says nothing about other sources outside of GNews. And if GNews is all you have looked at, you haven't complied with BEFORE. The department is also notable on account of its size, age and importance. As an obvious redirect to the article on Santa Monica, this page is not even theoretically eligible for deletion (WP:R). This nomination is really a merger proposal masquerading as an AfD. AfD isn't for mergers, and this type of nomination should cease. James500 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gbooks contains very little in-depth coverage where the police department is the main subject of the book. Please also provide evidence of actual sources outside of gnews you have found. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The level of coverage in GBooks conforms to my ideas of significant coverage. Sources that I found come up immediately when you follow the set of links at the top of this AfD after the words "Find sources". I'm sure you don't need a detailed webliography to find the 452 sources in Highbeam, or the sources in GScholar. James500 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. 452 sources may not be in depth, it's the quality not quantity of sources. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only an essay. It is also referring to the existence of sources, not their quality. Since you do not dispute that the 452 sources in Highbeam exist, it is not relevant. I can't see anything wrong with the quality of all of the sources taken together as a whole. If you think I am mistaken, you should explain what is wrong with each of those four hundred sources, and each of all the other reliable sources, going through all of them one at a time. Since there are more than a thousand, that should take you a very long time. Notability doesn't need to come from a small number of very large sources. It can also come from a larger number of smaller sources. In my opinion, the sum total of the coverage in all the sources combined together as one is significant. That being the case, I don't need to specify a handful of the most detailed sources, as I am not relying on them alone anyway, and it would be misleading. James500 (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the time spent arguing here you could list some sources, I will happily change my vote to keep if you list 10 indepth non routine sources. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why ten? GNG doesn't appear to me to require more than one "in depth" source at most. And how much depth do you want exactly? James500 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually list in depth sources please LibStar (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be individually "in depth". Invalid request. James500 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS regarding large hit counts from searches. Have you actually checked all 452 sources? LibStar (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is another essay. It is not applicable since I invoked the coverage in the sources, not their number. That essay admits that GBooks, GScholar and GNews are special cases. Highbeam isn't Google. I have examined the content of enough of the sources to convince me that the sum total of the content was already significant up to that point, according to my views on the correct interpretation of GNG. I examined the content of many pages of the results. I didn't count the exact number. It isn't necessary. James500 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time please provide evidence of sources to establish notability, stop playing games and provide the evidence. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For third time, I will not post hundred of links to demonstrate the sum total level of coverage that I am invoking. It is all in links at the top of the page. Anyone can look at it. Stop pretending to not understand. Stop asking me to do something that is obviously a time wasting tactic. James500 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC

I never asked for 100s of links, the fact you can't even produce 3, says it all. I'm changing my vote to strong delete on the basis of your inability to list sources. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is forbidden by WP:NRVE, which says that notability is determined by the existence of sources, not by their citation or non-citation by me. You know perfectly well that I have not at this point asserted that the notability of this topic could be established by three or ten of the much larger number of reliable sources alone, without looking at others, so I would likely be adding a very large number of links if I tried to comply with your request. James500 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first few pages of highbeam are all WP:ROUTINE coverage eg press release on "SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT DRIVER LICENSE/ DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE CHECKPOINT", "SANTA MONICA, Calif., Sept. 7 -- The Santa Monica Police Department issued the following press release: The Santa Monica Police Department will be conducting a DUI/Driver's License Checkpoint on the evening of Friday, September 14, 2012" LibStar (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) which only applies to the notability of events. Whatever the department is, it is not an event. James500 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:ORGDEPTH which excludes trivial and routine coverage for organizations. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND specifically excludes press releases, so there's most of your beloved 452 high beam sources invalid. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in fact every high beam source I've checked so far is a police department press release thus not third party coverage and would not qualify to establish notability.

Like The Santa Monica Police Department issued the following news release: On Sunday, July 8, 2007, at 11:00 P.M., undercover officers, with the assistance of uniformed patrol officers, from the Santa Monica Police Department were monitoring the parking structures located in the Downtown area LibStar (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Santa Monica Police" -release and "Santa Monica Police Department" -release. James500 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the first page of results it's all run of the mill stuff of what a police department does and reported in media, arrest someone, announce they are looking for someone. and the 452 highbeam results is reduced significantly LibStar (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To 617 and 194 respectively. James500 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having given the matter further consideration, I cannot regard coverage of investigations etc of specific crimes as "routine" because that implies regularity, whereas criminal investigations and prosecutions are inherently irregular because crimes are not committed according to a pre-determined regular schedule, but instead occur at intervals that are presumably random. James500 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then every fire station, ambulance station and police station will get automatic notability as nothing happens on a pre-determined regular schedule. You're clutching at straws here, none of the coverage I've seen suggests this is a notable police department, considering WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, it's amusing how you can't actually cite specific examples of sources. LibStar (talk)

the reporting of crimes which you argue as non routine fails WP:AUD as there is no national significance of arresting for drugs even murder in the USA. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Many things happen on a pre-determined regular schedule. Christmas would be one example. It happens every year on the same day (25th December). I don't recall saying that I can't cite examples, as opposed to saying that I won't. (2) AUD is a complete mess, has been under discussion for some time, doesn't appear to me to reflect consensus and is certain be deleted sooner or later. It is also concerned with whether the source is local, not with the significance of the arrest, crime or etc reported. I doubt a source on the internet could be called "local", it being available to read anywhere in the world where there are landlines or mobile phone coverage. There are other possible objections to the application of AUD, for which see the discussion which took place on its talk page. And judging from the contents of English newspapers, some American murders, and their investigations, seem to be of international significance. James500 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is a silly argument, just because something can be read on the internet does not count as international coverage. International coverage means the story, entity was taken up by foreign news sources or one of the biggest like CNN or BBC. My daughter's school newsletter is published on the internet, is that now international? The Santa Monica police coverage is primarily local, you're really clutching at straws trying to establish notability for this. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "clutching at straws". The argument isn't silly at all. AUD doesn't bother to define "local" and the consensus is that it is not clear what that means in ordinary language, much less what it should mean in that guideline. A school newsletter could be rejected as unreliable (for matters not related to the school) because teachers are not professional journalists, and as non-independent (for matters that would be allowed under ABOUTSELF). We don't need AUD for that. So that is not a valid analogy. James500 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC) And since AUD only requires at most some coverage (it need not be significant) in one source that is non-local, it is not enough to argue that the coverage is primarily local, as it must all be local for that guideline to be even potentially engaged. James500 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop the pointless discussion. You've had your say. You don't think it's notable because you claim coverage is only routine. Others claim it's notable because of its size and obvious significance. Leave it up to others to decide now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you're taking sides, but I'll ask you if you consider press releases a reliable source for establishing notability? LibStar (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not taking sides on this daft argument. I've already had my say above. But this is just labouring it to the point of ridiculousness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge/delete - the only useful thing is the sentence stating who is the current police chief and when she was elected. The fact that Lindsay Lohan had a mugshot taken there is highly unnotable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly don't realise that stubs are perfectly acceptable articles and the fact that there isn't a lot in the article now doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future! There's plenty that can be written on police forces of this size. That's the thing about Wikipedia - it's an ongoing project. We're here to discuss whether the subject is notable, not what the current state of the article is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what we're here to discus; I'm saying this topic is NOT notable at this time per WP:GNG. The subject of this article fails WP:ORGDEPTH. If the Santa Monica Police Department ever becomes notable enough "in the future" then you can recreate the article. I was simply stating that's the only thing worthy of even being "merged" at this time, and even that item is fairly trivial. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) Of the existing content of the article, the list of former police chiefs and their dates of tenure is useful for the study of local history. The picture of the police station and vehicle is useful for illustrative purposes. The explanation of the abbreviation is useful for understanding jargon that might otherwise be incomprehensible. The location is useful for knowing where it is. The argument originally advanced above also ignores WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE and so forth. (2) For the absolute avoidance of doubt, even though the introduction to N says, and has always said, that a topic that satisfies GNG does not need to satisfy ORG (or any other SNG) as well, I am satisfied this topic does indeed satisfy ORG. James500 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - None of those things are relevant for encyclopedic interest. Wikipedia is not Google. The photo is already on Commons and not proposed for deletion, so it can still be used in case everyone forgets what a 21st-century police car and building of no architectural interest look like. Hopefully, this photo will be preserved to help future archeologists desperate to understand our civilization. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of those things are of encyclopedic interest. Wikipedia is not a single volume paper encyclopedia containing only pitifully and unnecessarily brief articles on only the most obvious and pedestrian topics (NOTPAPER), any more than it is Google. James500 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I spent time digging up in-depth sources that quite clearly go beyond routine coverage and local audiences; hopefully these will allay the concerns of those advocating for deletion above. The Santa Monica Police Department has been pioneering a program to try to reduce homelessness, and this has received quite a bit of coverage. The longest report is one by the Urban Institute [1], pages 79-82 focus specifically on the role the SMPD plays in the Homeless Liason program. Also an article by the Los Angeles Times on the same subject [2], and a brief mention in a book [3]. Based upon this coverage, I conclude this article meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG. And yes, I will add these sources to the article as soon as I have a little more time. Altamel (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the homeless program is notable enough for the police department to have its own entry. It's a city program, run by police and service providers, that involves police to not ignore homeless people but ask if they would like to not be homeless. I don't see why that is notable in the least (or why they need a program to tell them to help people in distress), but the coverage is not significant. The LA Times article is about homelessness in Santa Monica and what the city is doing about it; it does not give much attention to the police department or police. The 160+page report is also about homelessness in general and only 3 pages concern the police. Homelessness in Santa Monica IS notable because of its famous history of claiming to welcome homeless while treating them like crap (eg $5,000 bail for stealing cup of coffee), but this should go in Santa Monica, California. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to above, the sources do not provide evidence of "strong keep". this one is a paragraph reference to the Police dept in a book of several hundred pages. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent sized paragraph absolutely is significant coverage. That passage alone , by itself, satisfies GNG as interpreted by WP:100W (which is intended as a maximum) before we even look at the hundreds of other sources. James500 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) And the overall length of the book or report is irrelevant. A detailed paragraph in a 7 page essay is exactly the same value for notability purposes as the same paragraph in a 700 page book or a 7,000 or 70,000 page encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather wary of relying upon a relatively new essay to interpret significant coverage. Still, WP:SIGCOV does note that the topic covered does not need to be the main subject of the source material; the threshold is "directly and in detail." Three pages is long enough for a stand-alone news article, so I don't see why it is not significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how ironic, James500 like to critique me for pointing out essays ("that is only an essay") when he does so himself. even worse it's an essay he wrote himself. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've participated in many AfDs , probably 100s, most articles that have been kept are when keep !voters demonstrate specific examples of sources to establish notability. James500 has yet to do this. this is the easiest way to establish notability rather than longwinded policy arguments, at least Altamel has made a genuine effort to list and explain sources rather than James500 constant refusal. It gives the impression (especially as many days have passed and time wasted arguing rather than specifying sources) that James knows notability is lacking as the sources are weak. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. As GNG is expressed in language that is inherently vague, ambiguous and subjective, no one can profess to know what it means. The most that anyone can do is express an opinion, which will involve making a personal decision. The words "detail" and "trivial", and so forth, that appear there do not have an absolute meaning in the English language. It certainly doesn't automatically mean what you would personally like it to mean. If you don't understand why that is, try searching for "proper meaning fallacy" with Google. There is no requirement at AfD to cite or explain any particular individual source, and, unless the source is offline, or unreasonably difficult to find with Google (which is not the case here), there is no reason to do so. I have participated in hundreds of AfDs myself, and looked at many more, and I have seen a very large number of AfDs being closed as keep were no sources have been individually named or explained by anyone. However in this case I have identified and explained a particular source. I pointed out above that the book on community policing in GBooks that you linked to above contains a paragraph about the SMPD, that deals directly with the SMPD and exceeds one hundred words in length. And I then expressed my opinion that the correct interpretation of GNG is that one hundred words is ipso facto significant coverage. (There is certainly nothing in the notability guidelines that contradicts that view). Therefore notability. Since I consider the case for notability to be conclusively proved by that one source alone, there is no need for me to individually specify others amongst the hundreds of sources that mention the SMPD. My arguments are no more long winded than yours. I cited the essay as a shorthand for a particular interpretation of a guideline ("as interpreted by"), not as if it was a policy or guideline. Strictly speaking, I cited GNG ("satisfies GNG"), which is definitely not an essay. I don't think it matters who wrote the essay. I have also written a lot of policies and guidelines. By your logic, I wouldn't be able to cite those either, which can't be right. In my view, the arguments made here are not a waste of time. In my view, the entire AfD is a waste of time. If the article hadn't been nominated, we wouldn't be arguing. James500 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the above just demonstrates all the time spent on excessive long winded arguments with no genuine attempt to give examples of significant coverage. I'm sure the closing admin will take this into account including using an essay you invented yourself to back your argument. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That is an inherently valid argument. Notability depends only on the existence of sources. It does not depend on their immediate citation by me or anyone else. It does not depend on anything in Wikipedia's content. There is nothing to take into account. That is provided by the guideline. (2) And since Altamel has individually named plenty of individual sources, the argument is also based on an untrue factual premise. There cannot be "no genuine attempt to give examples of significant coverage" if Altamel has, (and by your own admission above on this page he indeed has) done exactly that. And asking me to repeat his citations for the sake of doing so would be completely bizarre. It would be so absurd as to violate WP:IAR, which is policy. (3) "using an essay you've invented yourself" is a non argument, for the reasons I've already explained. (4) In any event, at the moment, consensus is clearly in favour of keeping the article. James500 (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above response clearly demonstrates my point, no genuine attempt to specify sources but continual long winded responses avoiding any attempt to demonstrate actual sources. I can bet the next response will be the same. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is pure repetition that advances no new arguments or ideas that have not already been advanced, and comprehensively answered, above on this page. James500 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've hardly comprehensively answered the notability concerns I've raised but instead use long winded arguments including citing essays (and you criticised me for citing essays) that you've invented yourself. the closing admin will note your complete reluctance to specify sources but resort to deflection and avoidance on this key question. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article with sources including some not mentioned above. I invite any new !voters browsing this page to offer their perspectives. Altamel (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is some depth of coverage here. Also a fair bit of coverage of their initiative to assist the homeless here. Some depth here. I've only been looking for a few minutes. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how is this coverage about the police department? it's about a corrupt police officer. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

secondly, a masters thesis is not considered a reliable source, it's been discussed here and here. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an infobox was added with additional sourced details. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Magnolia677. Article is improving and will improve further. It's a major metro police department, and clearly notable according to the references. Jus da fax 15:16, 17 June 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.