Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon 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 delete. Technically, consensus leaned to "keep". However, I found the delete arguments stronger in this case. Article is over 20 months old, does not have a single WP:RS or WP:V citation in the whole thing, and does not meet the guidelines of WP:FICT. While some participants said they would add citations, as of now, three days past the end date of this AfD, none had been added. If you think I've made a mistake in this decision, please take it to WP:DRV for consideration. Pigman☿ 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raccoon Police Department

Raccoon Police Department (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resident Evil (series) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is an organization from a notable game series that was made into three movies played and seen by millions of people internationally. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not an assertion of notability for the police department, but only for the movies and the games, just because they are popular doesn't mean that this department is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If millions of people are familiar with it, then it is notable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the sources to make it meet WP:FICT otherwise you're just spouting nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sources, see this and also, please remember to maintain civility. I may strongly disagree with people, but I am not accusing them of "spouting nonsense." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A list of Google hits hardly qualifies as significant reliable sources. You are right, nonsense was entirely the wrong word to use, you are spouting irrelevancies. RMHED (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They're relevant in that they demonstrate considerable interest in the subject. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, here's another subject of considerable intereset.[1]. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to main article. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Merging this to the main article(s) would make it too long and unwieldy. This is clearly a sub-article of a notable subject and really shouldn't be judged as stringently as a main article. You shouldn't have to reinvent the WP:N wheel every single time an article splinters off because of length. Torc2 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But I don't propose merging I, I'm propsing its deletion due to lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say merge if the main article wasn't already so long, but it is, and clearly trying to merge that much information into an already-lengthy would be harmful, so the vote is to keep it as a sub-article. I think the topic is clearly notable when viewed as a part of whole. Torc2 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is notable, all it needs is referencing. I'm currently referencing Dynasty Warriors character articles because they relate to another project that I am involved in, but if this article isn't deleted I will add them when I have the time. Unless, of course, Judgesurreal777 would like to offer a hand. I firmly believe that people should at least attempt to better an article before trying to delete it entirely. Gamer Junkie 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Post them here and I will help, post a bunch of them and I will also withdraw the nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

References will come from the game, just as the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII article has been constructed. This is actually an FA, so I'm assuming they will suffice? Gamer Junkie 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No that wont suffice at all. As you can see in the Featured article you linked to, we need development commentary, design sketches, that kind of stuff, simply citing the game would show a lack of notability, which is the current issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are already in the article and the commentary referencing only applies to the section regarding character development, which isn't a part of this article, so how is that a valid reference? And this article is notable because you'll find none of this in the main context. Searching for R.P.D. and getting Resident Evil is akin to searching for Pontiac Firebird and being redirected to an article about cars. Gamer Junkie 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But the lack of development and creation info is the whole point of this nomination, if it doesn't have that, it isn't notabile enough to have its own article, because notability says it will have that stuff. And I didn't suggest redirecting, I said was should delete it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16

17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say that it can't be- or won't be- added later? If you delete it, it might simply be created again. I'm also becoming very tired of people applying parts of policy and guideline information that they agree with and simply ignoring what they don't. Notability also states that:

• "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable."
• "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines."
• "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Not only this, but guidelines are not policy. They're not absolutely compulsory and aren't set in stone, meaning there is no specific rule applying to the notability of any one article. I reiterate, the article needs to be improved. Deleting information is detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Gamer Junkie 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether policy or not, Wikipedia should not be an indescriminant collection of information, and this is just plot recitation without reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe it to be, and allow me to emphasise what YOU believe it to be, there's nothing to say the article can't be improved with a little effort and time. It falls within notability and therefore the purpose of this nomination is null and void. Gamer Junkie 07:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you knew anything about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you would realize that you have demonstrated no proof that this is in any way notable, and you need to in order to save the article. Read this WP:FICTION, and you will understand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article is beyond redemption as there are no sound arguments for keeping or merging its content. Firstly there are no verifiable primary sources to identify where the article content comes from; secondly, there are no reliable secondary sources which would indicate that this fictional police department has any notability outside of the Resident Evil franchise; lastly, its content is almost entirely comprised plot summary which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. In my view, this article should be transwikied to a fansite or fancruft.net where its content would be welcomed and appropriate. --Gavin Collins 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very notable and no good reasons given to delete.--Needslevel 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Falls within notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.252.133 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof it has notability, unless you can establish it, there is no point to voting "keep". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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.