Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegheny County Medical Examiner


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Allegheny County Medical Examiner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete, we do not need a list of Medical Examiners of a county. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists and Medical examiner offices are not inherently notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep as the article's creator I think this tag was extremely premature. This isn't Timbuktu Pennsyltucky its the office that Cyril Wecht headed for 20 years, as well as the longtime ME for Ft. Lauderdale (Joshua Perper) having almost 14 years here as ME. I forgive Hell in a Bucket for tagging it but it was extremely premature. Research before wordsmithing, the article only took a few minutes after the references.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  08:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The same notability rules apply no matter where the place in question is situated. And just as an FYI, I have no idea who any of the people who headed this place are, and I doubt many other people do either. Perhaps the closest guidelines available are Hospitals which in turn refers us to ORG. See particularly no inherited notability (i.e. the notability of famous people associated with the place does not "count" as notability, it needs to be notable on its own) and we need at least one of the sources to be outside the immediate area in question. is this source meeting that requirement, I don't know I'm not from there.  Lesion  ( talk ) 10:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gene. This is the ME's office for Pittsburgh, made famous by notable cases and notable former ME's.  For a similar case, see Articles for deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office.  The similarities in each case is that they appear to be minor offices, but in fact are notable once you look at them in context. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, I point out no inherited notability: "... is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. " I'm not a deletionist, but I would like to follow policy that says to keep the article instead of keeping it for reasons that diverge from policy. Lesion  ( talk ) 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment re: earlier Keep Lesion, I believe the point some editors are attempting to make is that there are still pillars above policies on Wikipedia, primarily WP:COMMONSENSE. Thou your statement is correct, valid and relevant it could also be easily used to promote the deletion of about 90% of wikipedia.  Being fair no editor since the labeling has come out for deletion but I do wonder how many have actually clicked the voluminous wikilinks to Drs. Wecht and Perper (which doesn't transfer relevance but who's articles would be pretty vacant if not for the Allegheny County ME office & their involvement with it).  Perhaps my initial shocked reaction that a deletion proposal would be raised in which I passively alluded to notability was in error for a discussion of Wikipolicies, however more would be familiar with the ME's of the office than familiar with specific wikipolicies.  Given that Jay Leno makes a living off showing how many American's can't recognize a pic of the Vice President maybe that doesn't mean much at all, so back to WP:COMMONSENSE a pillar above policies.    Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   20:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that the policy seems to contradict the reasons to keep given so far. A good source which gave significant coverage to the office generally, not mentioning it in passing when discussing individuals or events connected with it, would be ideal, and also at least one source from outside the immediate region of the office, I interpret this in this case to mean from outside the city. Lesion  ( talk ) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed Lesion, and working on that. Possibly a retag about "citations" rather than "deletion" is in order?  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then Keep, assuming policy for notability sources can be shown to be met, at some point. If you said several sources were easy to find it is probably just a sourcing issue rather than a true notability issue. I wouldn't be inclined to suggest a specific time limit rather than a "find some more sources or it gets deleted" attitude, so a citations tag could be argued to be more appropriate, for you or another editor to improve the article in the future. Not sure if AfD's can be removed once they have started ... looks like it's going to be a keep anyway. There are a few votes for keep, often all that is needed since not many people comment on these.  Lesion  ( talk ) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable political office in a major American city. Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, as the office has generated significant coverage in independent RS.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of this article - which could either be the agency which hosts the holder of this position or the position itself - does not satisfy WP:GNG and has not received significant coverage in media. The sources being cited either focus on an individual who has gotten the position - and could have a Wikipedia article about themselves - or the opinions that the holder of this office has when talking about something other than this office. The sources being cited are not actually about this office - they just mention this office in reporting something else. I would like to see more elected positions have articles on Wikipedia but for that to happen more elected positions need other media coverage, and this one does not have that.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Bluerasberry, thou the logic sounds good the conclusion isn't real, ala Di-mon hoax. The same logic could be used to delete Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York & Los Angeles County Coroner's Office among dozens of other "offices" that include far fewer but similar  "sources being cited are not actually about this office - they just mention this office in reporting something else" .  Not only is the articles' GNG (thru WP:RS) met when compared to those more established articles, the only remaining way your logic can fit is that somehow LA & NY GNG is worth more than a Pittsburgh's (with WP:RS inverted on such things as Kennedy & Mad Butcher world news events etc.)  I'd agree there, but that's not about encyclopedias or RS (which actually count LA as 0 & NY as 1 for 4 & 6 years respectively).  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   08:08, 26 July 2013 (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.