Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff)


 * 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

David Ward (sheriff)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person is the sheriff tasked with dealing with the occupation of the wildlife refuge in Oregon. He is only known for dealing with this particular event and all references listed in the article are linked to that event. Although some addition, trivial, information about his background is presented, all that information comes from articles related to the occupation. Therefore, this person is not notable per WP:BLP1E and should be deleted and probably redirected to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoutr (talk • contribs) *Merge and Redir Also agree with nom. While the RSs at this bio article are somewhat more compelling, note that every one of them is dated during the Occupation, lending support for the perception that he only as Wikipedia-style "notability" in association with this single event. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC) struck by author, see new !vote belowNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge: entirely agree with nom. WP:BLP1E clearly applies. Bondegezou (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is factually false. Only two (2) of the six (6) references are dated during the occupation. LavaBaron (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If I erred, it was not intentional. I thought I had looked at each, at least in the version I check, whatever that was.  In any case, it's moot for a different reason, see below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To where? Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Neutral. Really only known for a single event, and thus not sufficiently notable according to our notability criteria. WP:POLOUTCOMES gives us however the possibility to consider an elected politician in combination with a single event the possibility to pass the bar of notability (POLOUTCOMES uses the term may, and thus that requires a personal evaluation). I am not so sure his activities in the lodge qualify to pass that bar for me, although he may in teh future if he has a big role in ending the mess. L.tak (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC) L.tak (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as per the longstanding precedent described in criterion #7 in WP:POLOUTCOMES: Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. Ward is a politician holding elected office, not a civil servant - the office of sheriff in Oregon is a political office subject to competitive election. Further, Ward has received extensive and non-incidental (i.e. biographical) coverage in numerous local, regional, and national RS, including, respectively, The Burns Time-Herald, The Oregonian , The Los Angeles Times , etc. etc. Further, WP:ONEEVENT absolutely permits a standalone article when "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one."LavaBaron (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose (regular strength) attempt at humor LavaBaron has educated me on a guideline I did not know before.  In my struck remark above, note I did say the RSs seemed a bit more compelling, and as he is a local POL with international coverage, I'm persuaded he passes muster for his own article.  Thanks for the lesson, Lava.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying to myself, I belatedly realize the thing Lava pointed at is an essay. It still sounds good to me though, so I'm sticking with my "oppose".  Hopefully other respondents will address that argument with some head on rebuttal... anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - Definitely only known for one event so far. Parsley Man (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect - per WP:BLP1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP1E can only be invoked if 3 of 3 criteria are met. This article fails criteria #1 of BLP1E as only 2 of 6 RS cited in article refer to the "single event." Argument and, therefore, "delete" !vote is invalid. LavaBaron (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of one of your supporting (not about a single event) sources used in the article -- Here's another one used in the article from the same local rag  --- And how does this primary source  support notability??? We both know the answer here, it doesn't. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a general rule I terminate response in routine RfDs when editors begin firing back with sentences that end in 5 question marks, or characterizing local newspapers as "rags" to support their position. I think the extreme nature of your response is sufficient validation of the !vote I've registered. Take care - LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Overlooking substance due to emphasis (???) or descriptiveness (rag) doesn't help your argument. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Blasting out a bunch of question marks / exclamation points and invectives like "rag!" ≠ "substance." That's why I'm overlooking ignoring your comment. LavaBaron (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel very ignored, please stop, I can't handle being ignored like this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a place to advance your policy-based arguments for your position, not throw tantrums. If you really find it necessary to treat us to this behavior, please feel free to do it at my Talk page and post a wikilink here. It will help keep things progressing in a readable and topical way at the AfD. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to Closing Admin - Note that the extraordinary step of protecting the Talk page for Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was recently applied due to suspiciously sequenced edits from relatively new SPAs. Please take this into account in evaluating this for a consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * LavaBaron, you need to be very careful when tossing stuff like this out; I checked every editor here and no one has less than 500 edits. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said any editor here had less than 500 edits. This is a reasonable preemptive courtesy backgrounder to the closing admin. I don't plan to sit here watching this AfD and I have no idea who will post here between now and the time it's closed. You need to be careful questioning the GF of other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Ward is a local elected official and while that might not merit a page on its own, his involvement with the crisis does merit it, as stated by LavaBaron. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The sheriff, Daniel Staton, of Multnomah County, the most populous county in Oregon with the state's largest city, Portland, doesn't have his own article and understandably so. Sheriff Ward's typical involvement at Malheur doesn't warrant a standalone article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An armed group taking over federal property and disrupting a whole county is hardly a 'typical involvement', as it is a federal matter. Ward has gotten significant attention for his attempts to end the situation. LavaBaron seems to accurately quote Wikipedia guidelines in this area. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, he quoted an essay. However, I do think the essay's reasoning applies, and I think its criteria 3 that can not be met, meaning Ward should have an article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 331dot, where is this significant attention you speak of, it certainly isn't in his article. Have you looked at the sources in the current article, like these two -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, could be in this biographical feature on Ward published in The Oregonian (c. 319,625), or this feature profile published in The Los Angeles Times (c. 653,868) (, etc. etc. etc. LavaBaron (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * People in the UK are aware that Ward has gotten death threats and had his offer of a safe exit rejected. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add that the French are also aware of Ward(and his image). 331dot (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see what the closing admin says, my crystal ball is showing likely REDIRECT . -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we have 4 !votes for OPPOSE, 2 for Redirect, and 2 for Delete, as well as policy-based argumentation for Oppose verses 5 question mark battlecries for Redirect. So, with all due respect, I think your crystal ball needs a good polish. LavaBaron (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/Oppose per WP:POLOUTCOMES as said by LavaBaron. MB298 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/Oppose - way too early to throw this around per WP:RAPID. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Before anyone says "merge" please read this useful essay about voting "merge" at AFD. In short, it asks that people specify what they think merits merging. That should help prevent later drama. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - he's gotten a lot of national media attention. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - while local sheriffs are not normally notable, there has been enough coverage of both him and the event to pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep local politician who has gained enough notice to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2016 (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.