Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleven-code

Eleven-code

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY of one department CTJF83 chat 19:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom's extremely obvious rationale. There are many editors (or at least user names) involved in the history of the article; it's hard to believe that not just one but many people would find this information notable for an encyclopedia. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, lack of sources, no assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic list of highway patrol codes. We are not a reference manual for CHiPS. JBsupreme (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go on a limb with a weak keep, strictly off of the precedent of the other code listings as in the article (Yes, I know, but hear me out), but won't complain if it gets deleted. The 11 codes are in semi-widespread use amongst law enforcement to a general extent, though I don't know how far. In my opinion, this serves as an OK example of listing examples. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a source of miscellaneous information , like an almanac, as well as an encyclopedia .A list of these for major cities or areas --especially those places frequently the settings of fiction, like this --would be appropriate information. A list of this for every possible jurisdiction would not. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMANUAL CTJF83 chat 07:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, what you are describing belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. We are not an indiscriminate body of information, or have you forgotten? JBsupreme (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he's not "forgotten" anything. I think I disagree with DGG more often than I agree with him, but I respect the idea that he wants to avoid losing information. The suggestion of Wikisource as an alternative is not unreasonable. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it qualifies for wikisource--it is not an original document. What I suggest people here do is to try to compile all of these related materials here for Wikibooks, which might be nearest. I've from time to time suggested something like WikiData, but I doubt there WMF will be starting a new project like that just now. There's another short range solution , which is to merge into the ten-code article, which is an incomplete collection of variations. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose it could be merged to the article about the California Highway Patrol, but if there are other jurisdictions that use an 11-code (as opposed to the "Ten-code"), then it would be notable enough for its own article. I'll have to say that I've considered the possibility, raised by Dennis, that there are other groups besides CHP that use an 11-code, but I've not been able to find it elsewhere in doing a search among sites like this one. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was more substance to it, rather than just a directory listing. CTJF83 chat 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this article would be more useful if it discussed the evolution and rationale for 11-code as contrasted to 10-code. 67.82.48.171 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sometimes Wikipedia serves as an almanac, containing information which is verifiable and useful to some readers, but which may not have the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to show notability. In this almanac category are such undeletables as every spot on the map which is inhabited. It is quite surprising that more coverage has not been found for these codes, since ChP has been featured in many TV shows and movies. Google Book search says that these codes receive some coverage in "Police telecommunications" by Alan Burton, 1973, page 342: "The message can be abbreviated to '19-23 11-98.' (Using the California Highway Patrol vehicle identification 19-23, and their radio code 11-98 for "meet the .." Google Book search also returns "Report" By California Dept. of the California Highway Patrol, p. 30: "At the hospital, the CHP officer who investigated the accident overheard that the victim ... was 11-44, the highway patrol code number for a fatal accident."(not an independent source and lacking bibliographic info). Other codes show up in snippet view other California government publications like [1] and [2]. Some individual codes like "11-99" have been discussed in relation to police shootings [3] or in reference to a foundation for slain policemen [4], [5], [6]. This is not a really strong demonstration of notability, but I feel it could fall into the 'almanac" provision, since the California Highway Patrol is the largest state police force in the U.S. If the decision is that a separate article is not justified, perhaps the codes could be added to the California Highway Patrol article, since I found no evidence anyone else uses them in addition to the ten codes. Edison (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you, or someone else wants to add to the article to make it more than not a directory, then I'll certainly withdraw the AfD CTJF83 GoUSA 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the code is being used in large parts of the USA, I'd certainly keep it. If it is only of local importance, probably not. Unfortunately this isn't clear from the introduction. As we are not Wikisource, the list of codes should at least be accompagnied by some more informations about the whens and hows, but this can come later. However what we do need now is some verifying sources. PanchoS (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/observation So far we have a couple week keep !votes being made but no one has taken steps to make this anything more than a directory listing which would be far better suited for Wikisource than Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that no obligations derive from arguing for either of keep or delete, which would seriously harm the discussion. PanchoS (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]