Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose - Let's try to make it better before deleting it.  The OEM is a relatively new city agency and has had increased prominence recently due to events like the Delaware River chemical spill in 2023 and the 2023 wildfires , and other more localized emergencies.  Unbandito ( talk ) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No objection to improvement but we do need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Philadelphia#Public_safety as preferred WP:ATD .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What content do you believe should be merged and where's the secondary source coverage to support it?  Because at the moment the only source is a press release from the City of Philadelphia.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SECONDARY is definitely preferred and is required to establish notability.  I am not arguing that this is an independently notable organization.  WP:PRIMARY is acceptable for verification of a paragraph in a larger article.  I would suggest merging this short article as a new section under Philadelphia#Public_safety .  The content can then be improved in place by editors of the Philadelphia article.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to disagree, I think it's completely undue at the Philadelphia article.  Without secondary sources we have no reason to believe this is a noteworthy organisation.  I also absolutely oppose inserting irrelevant and unacceptable content at another article with the expectation someone else will "improve" it at some unknown time.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course, you're free to disagree.  However, I've proposed an WP:ATD (policy) and your response approaches WP:IDONTLIKEIT (argument to avoid).  Your WP:UNDUE argument is also without merit as my proposed subsection would be smaller than the others existing there.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems you think WP:ATD prohibits actually deleting an article on a non-notable topic under any circumstances, ever.  Really struggling to see how what I said is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are arguments to avoid at deletion discussions.  I'm raising legitimate sourcing and quality content concerns which you have completely ignored.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 02:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ignoring article quality issues because WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a reason not to delete an entire article, not to insert new content in another article.  I think this time you're really reaching trying to avoid deletion via ATD.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , there is nothing suitable to merge.  The two prose sentences were copied verbatim from the referenced PDF (page 74/76) at the article's creation .  As far as I can tell from Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Pennsylvania and its ref , the PDF is copyrighted without a Wikipedia-compatible free license.  Even if the copied text is not a copyright violation ( WP:Copyright violations , policy), the official OEM site should be preferred as a source because it is current, not ten years out of date.  {{ Infobox government agency }} would be inappropriate detail in Philadelphia#Public safety .  As AusLondonder commented above, a subsection for OEM of any length seems excessive, due to WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight , policy) considerations.  The existing subsections have {{ Main }} templates linking to Philadelphia Police Department and Philadelphia Fire Department , respectively.  Although WP:Be bold is a guideline, I recommend proposing the addition at Talk:Philadelphia first.  Flatscan ( talk ) 04:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I buy these arguments but if I did, I think they would argue for a redirect to Philadelphia .  That way the contents would be available to Philadelphia editors in the redirect's history.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Always trying to scratch around for an "alternative" to deleting inappropriate content isn't necessary.  Some content simply does not belong on Wikipedia.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:19, 28 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy delete