Talk:police protection
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Deletion discussion[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
And protection by police. I think this might be the last of the obvious SOPs added by WritersCramp. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I grant that there is some ambiguity here ("police protection" could also refer to something like bulletproof vests worn by police for their own protection), but the phrase as currently defined is one that will always be transparent in meaning from the context, which will describe something or someone as being under the protection of the police. bd2412 T 14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- It actually says "law enforcement agency". Surely police protection is not a law enforcement agency, it's a system? Still, to what extent is police protection protection by the police? Is it actually by other bodies that aren't the police? Even then, is that even relevant? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412, even the bulletproof vest definition would be police + protection. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- This, and neighbouring entries on this page snitch bitch, police brutality, prisoner abuse and law enforcement agency are all creations of WritersCramp. Nomen est omen? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- The creator is a mere hint, or else one ends up in the logical fallacy of ad hominem; even generally bad editors can produce good entries, and we investigate those on a per-entry basis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Oh and I voted keep for a couple of his entries above. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- The creator is a mere hint, or else one ends up in the logical fallacy of ad hominem; even generally bad editors can produce good entries, and we investigate those on a per-entry basis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- This, and neighbouring entries on this page snitch bitch, police brutality, prisoner abuse and law enforcement agency are all creations of WritersCramp. Nomen est omen? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412, even the bulletproof vest definition would be police + protection. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- It actually says "law enforcement agency". Surely police protection is not a law enforcement agency, it's a system? Still, to what extent is police protection protection by the police? Is it actually by other bodies that aren't the police? Even then, is that even relevant? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Further comments: this is also in the OED, and in Collins (with two definitions). I don't consider it sum of parts at all. Consider that in general, ‘X protection’ means ‘protection of X’, e.g. in phrases like ‘wildlife protection’ or ‘child protection’. But ‘police protection’ does not mean ‘protection of the police’ but rather protection by the police. Ƿidsiþ 07:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then, a fortiori, the multiply ambiguous head butter must need an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ask and ye shall receive: head butter. bd2412 T 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, are you suggesting that (deprecated template usage) headbutter is not valid? I'm not sure of your point. There is no need to deconstruct the idiomaticity of ‘head butter’ since it already exists as a common single word. That's not the case with ‘policeprotection’, which is why I was trying to look at our expectations with noun-noun compounds. Ƿidsiþ 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. It is idiomatic – a type of task. Nevertheless, it lacks WT:CFI attestations.
No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)