Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles of the Metropolitan 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 delete. Consensus that this list fails our notability guidelines. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a new redirect if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not enough content to merit a standalone list; the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia already mentions equipment used by the department. There isn't anything of value here that isn't already covered sufficiently on that article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not only a content fork for the content in Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, neither this, nor the list of vehicles in this article contains a source validating the content. This fails WP:NOR and also, in my opinion as it deals with vehicle fleets specific to makes and models, WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presently lacking sources in the article ≠ OR. I believe that you've been told this before, and you should actually take the time to read WP:V and WP:OR carefully before you post the same misinterpretation in another AFD where you just comment on the current state of the article rather than its potential. If you mean instead to say no sources exist to be found, then say so plainly and explain why you think that. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any potential with this current article. Even if the original research issue is able to be addressed, it's still listcruft and no different to the wafts of bus fleet roster articles or subsections scattered across Wikipedia.Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you're not implying that it doesn't matter what you say at AFD so long as the page is deleted in the end. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with the LISTCRUFT assessment; there doesn't appear to be enough here to validate a content fork on this subject. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia#Equipment and Vehicles per WP:ATD; not maintaining this WP:SPLIT is reasonable, but so is keeping a redirect for a possible search term to where that subtopic is actually covered. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Concur with AJ this is all but LISTCRUFT, I'd favour deleting over redirecting as the pageviews are extremely low (generally 2-5 hits a day) so as such I personally think it's a useless redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those 2-5 people each day wouldn't think so. Really if a redirect's use is >0 and not harmful, we should keep it. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and Hugsyrup has indicated below why it may be harmful, due to ambiguity. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and lacks sources Alex-h (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Postdlf. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - And I oppose redirection on the basis that there are numerous other 'Metropolitan polices' and DC is probably not the best known of them, so it's by no means an obvious redirect and could even be confusing. For example, why not redirect it to Metropolitan Police Service#Fleet instead? Hugsyrup (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's an argument for "Keep and change to disambiguation page?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I suppose it is, when you put it like that! The trouble is, I find it a little hard to argue strongly for what would become a marginally-useful and rather overly-specific disambiguation page. Might it be a better solution to just redirect this to Metropolitan police? Hugsyrup (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Hugsyrup. We could rename first to Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and then redirect, but I'm indifferent at this point. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient coverage of what is run of the mill information. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2019 (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.