Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi-State Police

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 merge‎ to Interstate compact - very selectively. If the merge isn't carried out within one month, any editor is welcome to BLAR. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-State Police

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is an exercise in WP:OR on the topic of bi-state police agencies, which does not appear to be covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. I cannot find non-primary source material on this subject in Google Scholar, Google Books or any other searches. News results turn up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of police chases across state lines, and search results bring up individual instances (primary sources) of bi-state police cooperation but not secondary coverage of the topic. There's also nothing on the website of the Police Executive Research Forum, a major outlet of secondary research on law enforcement.) In lieu of secondary coverage, the page creator here has cobbled together several examples, based on primary sources (like compact agreements or the agencies' own websites) and sometimes the page creator's own impressions (see "

Texhoma doesn't have its official seal posted anywhere, but you can see faint visuals of it on officer uniforms and cars in pictures posted on its official police page on Facebook"). There is no evidence here or elsewhere of the secondary coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article fails WP:NOT by failing WP:NOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Remove the photos, trim the details, add some bullet points or a table, and rename "List of United States law enforcement agencies with multi-state jurisdiction". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would fail WP:NLIST, since I wasn't even able to find secondary-source discussion of those departments as a group. It would still be an exercise in original research to compose that list. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These agencies are rare, so the possibility of them being grouped together as a whole wouldn’t be likely. Not to mention, they all operate in different states. What secondary sources could be used? Is their website not a primary source? Is state law not a secondary source? Furthermore, each agency refers to themselves as a bi-state agency. Information relating to the police department is likely to be secondary, because unlike other law enforcement departments they’re part of a bigger organization that involves more than just law enforcement. It has reputable sources. Is there any way to fix the page in your eyes, since you’d love to delete it? LgShai (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in the DRPA section I gave references from a federal news article, DRPS’s website, and NJ-Pa state law. Is the news article not a secondary source? When writing this, I took notes and examples from PAPD’s main page, so would some information on that page qualify under Original Research too? Most of their references come from the port authority’s website with federal website news articles as secondary references. LgShai (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
State laws AND agency websites are primary sources. They can be used for information but not to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So state law and agency website references mean nothing unless a random author or news station reports on it. LgShai (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of notability, more or less yes. Please review WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:N; there is a lot of good information there to explain how this works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of that rule, but I’ll see what I can do. Most information about these agencies comes from before the times of Internet. Would I have to find an article about them as a whole for this specific page, or would individual articles be good? LgShai (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll be adding secondary sources the next few days, but I will be leaving the primary sources because Wikipedia policy allows primary sources that have been reputably published. Any interpretation will be removed for primary sources, unless I am able to find a secondary source. LgShai (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of WP:NLIST is that the list topic...bi-state/multi-state law enforcement agencies...has to have been referred to as a group. In this example, it has been...these are real things, with a handful of sources referring to these law enforcement agencies as having bi-stare jurisdiction. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt these agencies are real things. But let's look at the secondary sources added by the page creator:

Local news/trade publication stories that focus on the distinct topic of railroad police ([1], [2], [3])
Trade journal op-ed about federal versus state jurisdiction, no mention of police agencies, bi-state or otherwise ([4])
Conservative think-tank report that examines law enforcement task forces but does not appear to mention bi-state/multi-state agencies ([5])
CRS report focusing on interstate compacts with a single mention of their implications for police agencies:The Supreme Court, however, held that states could delegate their police power to an interstate compact commission because the Framers of the Constitution intended the Compact Clause to allow the states to resolve interstate problems in diverse and creative ways. ([6])
Book chapter on interstate compacts that does not mention police. ([7])
Think tank op-ed on Port Authority that does not mention police. ([8])

I still don't see any WP:SIGCOV of bi-state/multi-state policy agencies as a group or even as a concept. I think the best we could do here, if we can find some more secondary sourcing along the lines of the CRS report, is to do a very selective merge (to avoid the original research problems in this page) to interstate compact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference 4, this was the quote I referenced “ The argument for allowing abortions in federal enclaves under exclusive federal jurisdiction is based on the Assimilative Crimes Act and federal prosecutorial discretion. That federal law authorizes federal prosecution when a person commits an act that is a crime in the state where federal land is situated but isn’t a crime under federal law. Federal prosecutors in abortion-rights administrations could decline to bring charges for abortions on federal land within anti-abortion states.“

Im new to editing so apologies for not formatting it correctly. I’m still learning. LgShai (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you agreeing that this satisfies WP:NLIST? I’ve found more reputable articles of these agencies, but the articles are singular. They only include the specific police department. I don’t want to waste any more time deep diving into news articles if this will just be deleted.

Another issue I’m having is that every law enforcement page I’ve visited doesn’t contain an article that specifically includes each police department. They also consist of primary sources rather than secondary sources. “Federal law enforcement in the United States” and “Law enforcement in the United States” pages only give primary sources in their introductions (and most of the article) & contain interpretations with only those primary sources. LgShai (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable secondary sources

LgShai (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are acceptable as a source of information, but don’t count toward establishing notability.T v x1 19:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s the case “Federal law enforcement in the United States” and “Law enforcement in the United States” should lose their notability. They only contain primary sources. Almost every law enforcement page or list only contains primary sources. LgShai (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. At AfD we consider the merits of the article right in front of us. Editors are free to nominate other pages they may consider not to meet standards. Also, remember that notability is not determined solely by what's in the article but the existence of sources (WP:NEXIST). My contention in the nomination and in the source analysis is that there are insufficient qualifying sources for this topic, both in the article and outside it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have news articles that confirm the jurisdiction of every agency listed. Of If I added these secondary sources, what would cause this page to fail? WP:NLIST? If so, would changing the name clear this error?

The purpose of this article is to bring awareness to this rare occurrence, so it would be nice to get help formatting it to Wikipedia policy for people to read about it. 2600:100D:B014:396E:E993:BAE1:CE33:6F80 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources updated. LgShai (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG.T v x1 19:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Relatively redudant with interstate compact, and should therefore be merged into that article. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Secondary sources have been added establishing the notability requirements of WP:GNG. WP:OR text removed. LgShai (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LgShai Can you identify which secondary sources cover the topic of multistate/bistate police agencies overall rather than just talking about single examples of said police agencies? You've added several sources but I do not see any on examination that meet the standard we're looking for. An editor picking and choosing secondary sources that don't cover an overall topic but only discuss individual examples is still an exercise in original research and WP:SYNTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the page bud. You pick a new reason for each solution that anyone comes up with. You obviously just want it deleted. Thanks. Good bye. LgShai (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (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.