Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno County Sheriff's Office


 * 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 delete. There were some assertions here that sources existed, but none were actually presented. Saying, there are regional news sources (...) that, as a quick search of articles on their website and on Google News will reveal is not as strong an argument (by a long shot) as actually presenting some specific sources, and explaining why they meet WP:RS and WP:N. If somebody can write a properly sourced article on this topic, I don't see any reason they couldn't write a new version (which would really just be a round-about way of implementing 's idea of WP:TNT). But, the sources have to be there, in the article, and sources outside of local coverage would be stronger than just from the Fresno Bee. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fresno County Sheriff's Office

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A sheriff's office isn't automatically notable, and this one certainly is isn't (typo!). It used to look like this, when it basically explained what a sheriff's office was; now, recent edits have turned it into what probably looks like a copy of the office's website, including ranks and fallen officers (but not pay scales...). There are no citations from secondary sources, though they could probably be found for the dead officers, but what this needs is reliable sources discussing the office itself--and not this kind of stuff. In-depth discussion please. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stubify (either delete and recreate as a stub, or just blank 90% of it) - The subject is notable, but the article is WP:TNT. Drmies is right about this resembling the organization's own website, rather than an encyclopedia article.  I think we should cut it down to the bare essentials and allow it to be expanded with appropriate content. --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Nick, but tell me why it's notable. Drmies (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I read your first sentence "A sheriff's office isn't automatically notable, and this one certainly is." (emphasis mine) and took it to mean that you aren't disputing this organization's notability, but rather the article content. If you are questioning the notability and I read that wrong, then I'm sorry. However, as  points out below, there are regional news sources such as the Frenso Bee that, as a quick search of articles on their website and on Google News will reveal, have covered this organization extensively enough to satisfy WP:ORG.  Sure, there are some passing mentions, but there are also articles about activities carried out by the FSO that, when considered together, to me satisfy notability.  --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 03:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops--typo. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and refer to talk page as per WP:DP This discussion will not result in censoring the topic "Fresno County Sheriff's Office" or the older "Fresno County Sheriff's Department" from our encyclopedia.  The Fresno Bee is a regional newspaper, and the nomination shows no evidence of an attempt to determine the notability of this topic, instead throwing the idea of non-notability out like fish bait, and then claiming in advance that the resulting odor deserves serious discussion.  A notability deletion discussion is clearly a red herring when the topic will remain in the encyclopedia.  The type of notability being discussed here is a content decision, not a deletion decision.  WP:DP states, If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Unscintillating--WP:Speedy keep? Fo shizzle? Why, pray tell? Vandalism? Am I banned? Yes, the Bee is a reliable source. I sure hope no one finds it surprising that the term "Sheriff's Office" pops up in a Google search of their articles. Does it have anything interesting to say about this office, anything that makes it notable? Do you have any evidence at all that this office is noteworthy? Fish bait? Odor? Please cite evidence of notability or of vandalism (or whatever you wish to claim). Drmies (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though I've cited the source in bold text and cited exact text, you don't seem to be aware that my !vote is based on WP:Deletion policy, not WP:Speedy keep. Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't cite anything relevant. You need to cite secondary sources (I'll do it in bold, secondary sources) that prove the subject is notable. You can wikilawyer and cite policy ad nauseam, which you are clearly fond of, but you can't prove that this topic is notable. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now that you like calling for Speedy Keep--see Articles for deletion/LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources. I'm surprised: you spent so much time writing this up--is that time not better spent finding some reliable secondary sources, maybe a book or two, to prove the real point? Drmies (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please support our policies and guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that content issues aren't a reason for deletion, but I'd point out that WP:TNT is a thing. Sure, it's not policy or even a guideline, but it's an accepted practice to delete content that isn't salvageable and start fresh.  Is this at that level?  Maybe.  Article history shows that this article has never been based on reliable sources.  Hence my !vote above to make it a stub one way or another (via deletion/recreation or blanking).  I'd oppose a speedy closure of this, though.  There's enough to entertain a discussion. --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 03:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at the talk page of the article before I made my !vote, and there is no indication of problems with the article there such as you are now finding. WP:BEFORE advocates trying to resolve problems on the talk page of the article before trying to get the article deleted at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources? Since when is a government website not reliable about itself?    Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since always, Unscintillating--unless you believe everything that every government says about itself. Since police departments aren't inherently notable, you need secondary sources to prove the topic passes GNG. User:NickW557, do not be led astray by this user's verbosity: it's all hot air. They have as yet produced nothing to suggest the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for WP:Deletion policy doesn't mean ending content discussion. Rather it specifically says, as I've quoted above, that the discussion should be referred to the talk page or an appropriate forum.  As quoted above, WP:DP also explicitly mentions WP:RFC as a possible forum for resolving content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete In the general case, I don't think individual departments of local governments (counties or cities or districts or whatnot) are notable enough for their own article (of course they could be mentioned on the article of the city/county/etc to which they belong). This implies that county sherriff's offices aren't in general notable. The US has over 3000 counties, almost all of which will either have a sheriff's department (or something with a different name but equivalent function), but that doesn't mean all those ~3000 sheriff's departments are individually notable. Now, for a very large metropolis (e.g. Los Angeles, New York City, London, Tokyo, etc.), individual city/county/etc government departments might actually be notable due to their size. But I don't think that exception applies in this case, since Fresno County, California is under a million people, so an order of magnitude smaller than the cities I mentioned. SJK (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To add to my comment, news stories about a county sheriff's office arresting criminals, etc, isn't really good evidence for the notability of that office, since such news stories are generally WP:ROUTINE and primarily about the crime/arrest as opposed to the county sheriff's office itself. Now, if you have media articles where the sheriff's office itself is more the subject – e.g. allegations of corruption, mismanagement, brutality, racial profiling, etc; political conflicts within the sheriff's office or between it and the county government; lawsuits; etc – that kind of stuff could be enough to justify notability of the sheriff's office in its own right. But simply doing its job of arresting criminals etc isn't enough to make it notable, even when that gets reported regularly in the local media. Likewise, local media reports of personnel changes, involvement in charity functions, fluff pieces, etc, again are just routine coverage which doesn't by itself indicate notability. SJK (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG; Sheriff office is not notable law enforcement agency. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  03:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' as there's simply nothing actually convincing for its own article and that's not surprising, any necessary information would be best mentioned at the locality's article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 26 June 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.