Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hernando 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 redirect to Hernando County, Florida. The nose count is about even, but most of the keep arguments don't impress me.

The best argument on the keep side is from User:Nicjec, who (thank you!) provides some sources, but User:John from Idegon makes a pretty good argument as to why those sources are inadequate. User:Bearian's keep argument has me a bit perplexed; he argues that we should keep articles about the larger departments, yet I see no reason that description applies here.

On the delete side, User:DGG's suggestion to delete before redirecting didn't gain any support.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hernando County Sheriff's Office

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not come within a mile of meeting ORG. Again, this is a local law enforcement agency with 0 widespread media coverage. If you can point me to reliable sources that discuss the agency in detail, at least one of which is geographically separate from the department's locale, I'll be happy to withdraw this. Police agencies have no inherent notability. It has to be shown. There isn't even much of the typical coverage for police on this department (that being personnel changes and stories on crime, neither of which satisfy the coverage in detail required). John from Idegon (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: A police agency that covers an entire county in the State of Florida certainly does have notability. There has been widespread media coverage on this agency in the past. This article can be cleaned up, modified, and additional information regarding the agency's history can be added. A quick search of international media websites revealed that there has been national coverage of this agency and I have referenced a few. In my opinion, additions are necessary to this article; however, in its current state, this article is in compliance with ORG.  --Nicjec (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * So where in any of those references is discussion in detail of the subject of the article? They are stories about crimes that happened to occur in their jurisdiction. Compare that to the article on sheriff offices that are notable such as Cook County, Illinois or Los Angeles County, California. There are copious amounts of material actually about the departments, not about the crimes they are supposed to interdict in. Have you ever looked to see how many sheriff departments actually have articles? There is a reason there are so few. The fact of the matter is that lacking a long history and the attention being in a population center draws, not much is written about law enforcement. Tons about crime....very little about law enforcement. Unless there is some innovative technique originating with them (see Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety) or a long history of corruption, police be kinda like streetlights. We only care if they don't work. This does not represent a anti police bias on my part, just a true observation born out by what has been written. Like the old lady said on the Wendy's commercial--where's the meat? John from Idegon (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A large enough agency for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Hernando County, Florida. This county has about 173,000 people, which is pretty darned small in comparison to actual urban counties. There is no in-depth coverage of this law enforcement agency in reliable sources, except in passing mentions or routine local contexts. There is an appropriate place to discuss this agency, briefly, and that is in the article about the county it serves. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the point of redirection: it starts with the county name, and anyone looking for it would find the county as easily without the redirect. If we do redirect, it should be a delete and redirect, for there is only directory information in the article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hernando County, Florida. Sources do not point to an independently notable agency; it may be large and important to the citizens of the county, but that's not criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia (the same info can be gleaned from the agency's web site, where I assume the content largely comes from). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Too much data for the article on the county. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Respectfully,, that is an argument not to merge, something that is not on the table here (unless you are putting there and arguing against it, which seems nonsensical). It is not an argument to keep. Others have proposed redirecting, which does not involve merging. The vast majority of the content in the article in question is primarily sourced directly to the subject of the article. It would be predominantly unencyclopedic in the county's article. The arguments here are primarily (except one, which doesn't rise far above ILIKEIT IMO) whether to delete the article or redirect it to the county. Please consider your vote in light of this. Thanks. - John from Idegon (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the county, where it can be covered appropriately briefly; I don't see the in-depth coverage required for a separate article.  Sandstein   20:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oddly, there are no good precedents either way. We kept at Articles_for_deletion/Genesee_County,_New_York_Sheriff%27s_Office after it was improved, and Articles_for_deletion/Lee_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_(Florida) based on the size of the department. However we redirected after discussing at Articles_for_deletion/Leon_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_(Florida) and Articles_for_deletion/Fayette_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_(Tennessee). On the other hand, we deleted after discussions at Articles_for_deletion/Sevier_County_Sheriff%27s_Office, Articles_for_deletion/Sullivan_County_Tennessee_Sheriff%27s_Office, and Articles_for_deletion/Roanoke_County_Sheriff%27s_Office. My inclination is to keep the larger sheriff's offices and police departments. What our standards should be is still open. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 23 August 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.